








PSEUDO-PLATONICA 








A DISSERTATION 


ey 
py’ ous * 
ORESENTED TO THE Facutty oF Arts, LITERATURE AND 
SCIENCE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO IN 
CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF 
Doctor oF PHILOSOPHY 


BY 


WAS BLD EL 





_at . 
. \ 
- 
- + - - 
f vv tet 
¥ “» 


Lad 


ie, AL 

} BALTIMORE 

THE FRIEDENWALD COMPANY 
. 1896 








Faget 
Bigs ae 


lense 





Se 


4 uJ 
Bs fee 








PREFACE. 


One who undertakes the task of criticising any considerable 
body of classical literature must avail himself of the facts gathered 
by the labor of many predecessors. But if his work is to possess 
independent value he must exercise his own judgment to an 
extent that renders his results in a sense properly his own. At 
times it becomes, consequently, rather perplexing to determine 
just what kind of acknowledgment he should make to those from 
whose works he is conscious of having derived benefit. Inthe 
following pages it has been my aim to concentrate whatever of 
value was to be gathered from all sources accessible to me and 
yet to be perfectly free in determining upon the precise applica- 
tion of particular data. To give credit for a reference to a passage 
or for an observation which was to be put to a slightly or wholly 
different use, without at the same time entering upon an unprofit- 
able explanation or polemic, seemed to be unfair and uncalled for. 
I have, therefore, concluded that it would be best to make a 
general acknowledgment of a far-reaching indebtedness to those 
authors whose works have particularly influenced my studies. 

For a knowledge of the problems and methods I owe most to 
the writings of Schleiermacher, Ast, Socher, Hermann, Stallbaum, 
von Stein, Steinhart, Ueberweg, Susemihl and Zeller. In regard 
to individual dialogues special acknowledgments are due. The 
fifth and sixth volumes of that portion of the Metzler translations 
of Plato which contains the suspect and spurious works have been 
of peculiar value because of Susemihl’s introductions and notes. I 
regret very deeply the failure of my efforts to procure the third and 
fourth volumes until my essay was in press, when only a partial 
use of them was possible. Fritzsche’s admirable recension of vol. 
VI, sec. II of Stallbaum’s Plato has saved me from repeating many 
errors of former critics in regard to Theages, Anterastae, and 
flipparchus, and well exemplifies the supreme advantage of having 
a good edition of the works under consideration. Boeckh’s “In 
Platonis qui fertur Minoem,” 1806, has formed the basis and start- 
ing-point for all subsequent criticism of that dialogue, and so I 
have felt at liberty to incorporate into my work such of his obser- 
vations as appeared to me to be sound. Cobet’s scant notes on 


4 


Alcibiades J in Mnemosyne, nova series, vol. II, p. 369 ff, are 
almost all very judicious and have been utilized very fully in my 
section on that dialogue. In regard tothe Letfers proper acknowl- 
edgments will be found in their appropriate place. To the num- 
erous dissertations on individual works which I have consulted, 
I am aware of owing very little, except where a reference to them 
in my notes owns the obligation. 

I would feel that I had signally failed to show due respect to 
my teachers if I refrained from mentioning among those to whom 
I am most indebted, Professors Kirchhoff, Vahlen, Diels and 
Zeller, of the University of Berlin, and Professor Paul Shorey, of 
the University of Chicago. To the personal interest and instruc- 
tion of Professor Diels I owe my first introduction to the open 
questions of ancient philosophy, to the solution of which his own 
“Doxographi” has largely contributed; and to Professor Zeller, 
quite apart from the unequaled learning with which he has treated 
that subject in all its phases, the inspiration of his personal direc- 
tion in entering upon its mazy paths. It would be to me a source 
of great pleasure to feel that this study contained fruits worthy of 
his instruction. Finally it should be said that the incentive to 
undertake this laborious task came from Professor Shorey, to 
whose learning and friendly criticism it is largely due that I have 
been enabled to avoid many rash statements and unfounded 
objections. Many of the suggestions also which have found a 
place in the following pages originated with him, though I alone 
am responsible for advocating them and giving them to the. 
public. | 

One word more by way of explanation. The order observed in 
Part II is in general the reverse of the chronological as set forth in 
Part I, § VII, except that the Letters have been placed together 
for convenience between the so-called dialog nothi and the other 
spurious dialogues. This arrangement will serve to familiarize 
the student with the character of these forged writings before he 
meets Alcibiades [and Epinomis, the only ones concerning which 


a doubt may yet be said to exist. 
W. A. H. 


Tue University oF Cuicaco, December, 1895. 


peters 


PART I.—INTRODUCTION. 


§ I.—METHOD. 


For a century, since the revival of interest by Schleiermacher, 
there has been unusual activity in the study of Plato.’ The ques- 
tion as to the genuineness of the works transmitted to us as his pro- 
ductions is of course fundamental. One would naturally suppose 
that an enquiry prosecuted with so much zeal and erudition must 
have resulted ere now in practical agreement at least on this point ; 
and, indeed, the opinions of scholars are gradually converging 
toward the acceptance of certain conclusions which are coming to 
be regarded as quite assured.” But as yet there cannot be said to 
exist any clearly defined and universally recognized method. In 
the earlier stages of the enquiry there appeared a lamentable con- 
fusion of the philosophical and philological modes of procedure, 
which naturally entailed a superficial and subjective judgment 
seriously prejudicial to the investigation. Although most con- 
tributions to the subject even now labor under the same difficulty, 
it is happily becoming daily more apparent that the task of criti- 
cism lies prior to the really philosophical treatment and that, in 
consequence, it belongs of right to philology. Hence, though 
a minute knowledge of ancient philosophy is indispensable, zhe 
method must be philological. Ast’s procedure well illustrates the 
dangers of a want of sober method. For though he distinctly 
declared that Platonism was not a system of tenets but a point of 
view or a mental attitude, his criticism consisted largely in a 


‘1Convenient summaries of the work of earlier critics may be found in 
Grote’s Plato, etc., vol. 1; Stein, Sieben Biicher z. Gesch. des Platonismus, 
bk. VII; Huit, La Vie et l’?Oeuvre de Platon, Paris, 1893. Ueberweg’s 
8th ed. not only gives a clear résumé, but also adds the bibliography up tg 
1894. 

2One of the most suggestive illustrations of the tendency—peculiarly 
significant because of the kind dispensation which has so prolonged his 
scientific labors—is the change which has taken place in Zeller’s views 
between the appearance of his Platonische Studien in 1839 and his latest 
publications. His change of front is all the more praiseworthy because 
it has been in a large measure the means of producing a like reaction in 
the views of others. 


6 


rigid comparison of individual works with his own conception of 
Plato’s philosophy. And Ast’s influence has been very great upon 
all his successors. When we remember that it was the philo- 
sophical revival in Germany that awakened the renewed interest 
in Plato, we find in that fact the key to the explanation of the 
earlier method. } 

The Platonic canon is not an isolated phenomenon. In recent 
years classical scholarship has been endeavoring to classify and 
examine critically its inheritance from the past. In so doing it 
has discovered the existence of a vast body of spurious literature® 
which owed its appearance to various but, in the main, determin- 
able causes and conditions. As this process advances, the char- 
acteristics of this class of writings begin to be ever more clearly 
discerned, and their use as a conclusive criterion to be applied to 
works still in dispute is greatly facilitated.* Clearly, then, the 
question as to the authenticity of doubtful claimants to a place in 
the Platonic canon cannot be definitely settled until this method, 
now only fairly begun, has been quite perfected and the pro- 
visional results gained in various fields may be summed up in a 
comprehensive statement. Meanwhile such provisional data must 
be gathered, and the present study is conceived as an attempt to 
contribute to this end by examining the doubtful constituents of 
the Platonic canon.° 


3I should here mention the excellent monograph by Dr. Gudeman on 
. “Literary Frauds among the Greeks”’ in ** Classical Studies in Honour of 
Henry Drisler,”’ 1894, in which he has stated in compendious form much 
that is highly instructive. 

*Susemihl’s Gesch, d. Gr, Litt. in d, Alexandrinerzeit, 1891-2, has in 
this respect rendered scholarship an inestimable service, which may con- 
fidently be expected to mark an epoch in the criticism of suspected litera- 
ture. Would that we possessed such a hand-book of the whole of Greek 
literature ! 

5>in a more limited sense the method here proposed was already recom- 
mended—but alas! not followed—by Hermann, Gesch. der plat. Philoso- 
phie, 1839, p. 411: “Und so kommen wir denn allerdings darauf zuriick, 
dass es bei weitem nicht so sehr allgemeiner Kennzeichen der Aechtheit als 
besonderer der Unichtheit bedarf, um die vorliegende Sammlung von 
ihren unterschobenen Bestandtheilen zu reinigen,’? and by Steinhart in 
Zeitschr. f. Phil., vol. 58, p. 57: ‘*‘ Hier ware es wol gerathen, einmal als 
Gegenprobe den umgekehrten (Weg) einzuschlagen, und von jenen Dia- 
logen auszugehen, die schon von den alten Kritikern verworfen wurden, 
um an dem anerkannt Unplatonischen das als platonisch Ueberlieferte zu 
priifen.”’ 


§II.—TurE ATTESTATION OF PLATONIC DIALOGUES. 


When we speak of the attestation of one of Plato’s works it is 
not sufficient to cite the catalogues of Thrasyllus and Aristoph- 
anes of Byzantium’; for it is now universally conceded that the 
attempt of Grote’ and others to vindicate them as authentic and 
definitive was wholly unsuccessful. The question then arises 
whether criticism is entirely without an adequate external support 
and committed to subjective criteria. Now we have, as is well 
known, a wholly unique tribunal for the adjustment of claims to 
Platonic authorship in the works of Aristotle, and to it are finally 
appealed, so far as external evidence is followed, all cases in 
dispute. As regards Aristotle’s testimony, indeed, there has been 
some doubt ; but it is now quite generally conceded to constitute 
certainty where it can be clearly made out. As I cannot here enter 
upon an elaborate critique of this question, I shall refer the 
student only to Bonitz’s /zdex to Aristotle s. v. Plato and to 
Zeller’s discussion which supplements it (Phil. der Gr., II A, p. 
443 ff.). I may the more readily do this, because the method 
pursued in this study approaches the question from the other side ; 
but there still remains something to be said. We may fairly 
ask whether later tradition, as represented e. g. by Aristophanes, 
though possessing in itself no independent evidential value, may 
not be available as confirmatory in cases where Aristotle shows 
acquaintance with a work but does not expressly attribute it to 
Plato. To me it seems clear that in all these instances the unan- 
imous verdict of antiquity must be conceded to be presumably 
right. Accordingly, unless more valid objections are raised than 
hitherto, I think we may safely accept for the provisional standard 
of genuineness in contrast to which the spurious may be placed, 
the following works as amply attested by Aristotle: Repudlic, 
Timaeus, Laws, Phaedo, Symposium, Phaedrus, Hippias Minor, 
Meno, Gorgias, Menexenus, Apology, Theaetetus, Philebus, Par- 
menides, Protagoras, Euthydemus, Sophista, Politicus, Lysis, 
| Laches, Charmides, Crito, Cratylus, and Hippias Major. In 
his youth Aristotle is known to have written dialogues in imita- 


6On Thrasyllus see Diog. L., III 56 ff.; on Aristophanes, zdid, 61 f. 

7Grote, Plato and the Other Companions of Socrates, vol. I. See 
Zeller’s criticism, /,¢., and for general points, Ueberweg, Grundriss der 
Gesch, der Phil., vol. I, 8th ed., pp. 144 ff. 


8 


tion of his master,’ adhering closely. to his style and doctrine. 
Years afterward, when he founded his school and wrote the extant 
works, his interest in the lighter Platonic dialogues gave place 
to criticism of the later writings and teachings of his master and 
his successors,® against whom he had to maintain his charter of 
independence. That his citations of those earlier dialogues, 
certainly made in large measure from memory, became in conse- 
quence rather vague can occasion no just surprise. 


§ III.—GENUINE WoRKS NOT ATTESTED BY ARISTOTLE. 


It will be observed that there are some dialogues not enumer- 
ated in the foregoing list which are not included in the Pseudo- 
Platonica which follow. These are the Cvyztias, Jon, and 
Euthyphro. On these, therefore, it seems necessary to say a few 
words, to which some brief notes on other works may be added. 
The Cvitias is so inseparably connected with the 7zmaeus, that, 
though a fragment, it is impossible to athetize it without rejecting 
the latter also. The only objections urged against the Futhyphro 
are philosophical and entirely subjective, hence it must be accepted 
unless arguments of a different nature can be produced. If it has 
no direct attestation earlier than Aristophanes,” neither is there 
anything to cast suspicion upon its authenticity, and it would be 
surprising indeed if it should ever be proved to be spurious. The 
lon, too, has been a suspect. Perhaps the best statement of pos- 
sible objections to it has been given by Zeller." It comes in the 


™Zeller has shown this of Aristotle’s ZAudemus, which imitated the CrzZo ; 
see Hermes XV, p. 547f- On his imitation of the Laws in Ilepi G:Aocogiac 
see note 9 on Zfinomis and Bywater in Journ, of Philol. VII, p. 64 ff. 

8 Aristotle’s own juvenile productions have suffered the same fate, as we 
possess only scattered fragments of them in the late eclectic literature. 

On the Critias see Susemihl, Jahrbiicher f. Philologie, etc., LXXI, p. 
703 ff., and Ueberweg, Aechtheit u. Zeitfolge der Plat. Schriften, p. 186 f. 

10The evident use of Luthyphro 7 B in Ilepi Ackaiov 372 probably is later 
than Aristophanes. See Introd. §§1V and VII and note 3 to II. A. But the 
Minos, which also imitates Huthrypho, is earlier than Aristophanes. See 
notes 25 and 26 to Minos. 

Zeller in- Zeitschr. f. Alterthumswissenschaft, 1851, p. 261. The stric- 
tures passed upon the /oz by Susemihl in his translation published in the 
Metzler series add some new points of view, but do not suffice to prove the 
dialogue spurious, as he himself admitted. Subsequently Susemihl (Gesch, 
d. Gr. Litt. ind. Alex. I, p. 23) rejected the dialogue outright, following 
Zeller and Wilamowitz, Eurip. Herakles, I, p. 12. Wilamowitz himself 
(Aristoteles und Athen, I, p. 188, n, 4) has lately in his peremptory manner 
presumed to pronounce the /on evidently spurious because of the mention 


9 


end to this: Though the leading thought and the treatment are 
clearly Platonic, there is nothing in it so characteristic but that an 
imitator might readily have contrived it by collating and applying 
the scattered utterances of Plato which bear upon the subject. 
Many such passages may be pointed out. And it is not probable 
4 priori that Plato would have felt called upon to treat of the art 
of the rhapsodes, who were of little consequence in his day. 
Against this charge it may be sufficient answer to point out that 
if Plato had touched upon this theme he could not have done so 
in any other spirit than that here appearing, and that the sup- 
posed imitations, being free and wholly germane to the subject, 
may very well be only the result of a naturally fixed point of view 
arising from Plato’s theory of art. Besides, it is clear that what 
is here said of the rhapsodes is intended also for actors, who 
cannot be considered very insignificant factors in the Athenian 
life of that day; and, if we have no direct attestation, there is 
at least one unmistakable reference to the Jom as early as the 
Eryxias.” J cannot, therefore, discover adequate reasons for 
believing the /oz spurious. Concerning the Parmenides,* which 
it is still the fashion in some quarters to reject, it must suffice to 
say chat the arguments adduced against it are either philosophical 
or purely linguistic. The former are, I am convinced, mistaken, 
and the latter wholly mal @ propos.“ At any rate, according to 


of Apollodorus of Cyzicus in 541 C, whom he identifies, without the least 
show of evidence, with Apollodorus the Athenian, who was general in Asia 
Minor in 340 B.C. His judgment on the Menexenus (ibid. II, p. 99, n. 35) 
is equally arbitrary. 

LE ryx. 403 D to Jon 532 D; see note 6 to Eryxias. 

13QOn the Parmenides see Zeller, Il a, p. 463 and 475 ff., and Steinhart in 
Zeitschr. f. Philosophie, vol. 51, p. 250 ff. The trite objection that the 
argument tpitoc avipwroc is used (alleged to be the invention of Aristotle by 
Schaarschmidt, Ueberweg, etc.) S. meets by showing that the Megarians 
employed it against Aristotle’s distinction of mpaty and Jdevrépa ovoia, 
Professor Shorey has repeatedly pointed out that the argument occurs also 
in Rep. 597 C and Zim. 31 A, and that the Xepudlic contains im parvo every 
important thought in the Parmenides. See Shorey, De Platonis Idearum 
Doctrina atque Mentis Humanae Notionibus Commentatio, esp. p. 26, p. 
30 n. 4 and his notes on the Zimaeus and on Jowett’s Plato and Jowett and 
Campbell’s Republic in A. J. P., vols. X, XIII and XVI. 

4%] cannot here enter into a discussion of the evidential value of the 
researches of Dittenberger, Frederking and Ritter. The severely dialectic 
and logical form of the Parm, naturally entailed monotony in the use of 
language, and particularly of particles of transition, and hence no legiti- 
mate conclusions can be drawn from observations of that character. 


IO 


the method herein proposed, there appears to me to be no suffi- 
cient case against any of the foregoing. 


§1V.—THE CANON. 


This leads us naturally to consider the origin of the canon. 
We do not know what, if any, precautions were taken in the 
Academy to guard the integrity of its founder’s literary bequest. 
The certainty, however, that we possess all that Plato published 
betokens effective care on this side; but what assurance have we 
that measures were adopted to prevent the intrusion of the works 
of others into the list? The artistic perfection of the master’s 
dialogues, incapable of being fairly epitomized, doubtless pre- 
served them from the fate of Aristotle’s works. But criticism 
shows that in the canon as transmitted spurious writings are 
included. When, therefore, did it assume its present form ? 

There probably existed lists of the works in the library of the 
Academy, but it is questionable whether they specially classified 
the scrolls by authors. Plato’s immediate pupils of long standing 
would not require such, and others might enquire of them. Per- 
haps, therefore, several generations may have passed before an 
authentic catalogue was attempted. At the Alexandrian library 
such procedure was more necessary ; but even there we have no 
evidence of a canon before Aristophanes, ca. 200 B. C., who pos- 
sibly was the first to constitute one. Of his method of verification 
we know absolutely nothing, but his arrangement into trilogies® 
was in part violentand unmeaning. Yet he did not reduce all to 
this scheme. D. L. says, after enumerating them, ta 0’ ddia xaé’ 
&y xat ardxtws, which seems, at first sight, to imply the whole 
traditional list, There is, in fact, only one point at which the 
catalogue of Thrasyllus adds something which, as will later appear, 
may not have been known to Aristophanes. That is in regard to 
the ’Extorodat, which, as a mere rubric, might be added to in- 
definitely until, as in Thrasyllus’ list, the letters were themselves 
catalogued according to the name of the addressee. If we adopt 
this view of the essential completeness of Aristophanes’ canon, 


_ we can readily account for the rejection of the so-called dzalogz 


nothi; for with the single exception of the Hryxias, they doubt- 
less did not exist sufficiently long before 200 to be accepted as 


1° A, apud D.L., III 61 has five trilogies, as follows: I. Rep., Tim., Crit- 
tas; Il. Soph., Polit., Crat.; Ill. Legg., Minos, Epin.; 1V. Theaet., Bu- 
thyphro, Apol.; V. Crito, Phaedo, ’ExworoAdi. 

Cf, D. L., III 62: vobetovtac.. . duodoyovuévog Midwr, ’Epvsiac, ’AAKvav, 
axégarhor y/ (2), Liovdoc, ’AEloyoc, Anuodéxoc, kK. T. A. 


Il 


Platonic. The Avyxias was, quite probably, not received into 
the:list because it was referred to’some other author by a tradition 
later become extinct. But why, we must then ask, did Aristo- 
phanes admit Zpinomis, Alcibiades Il, Anterastae, and Hip- 
parchus. It seems necessary to concede that in the case of some 
or all of these dialogues there coexisted with the common tradi- 
tion or assumption attributing them to Plato, another which 
Assigned them to a different source.” Now, A. is known” to have 
used spurious Aristotelian works in his zep? €dwy and may well 
have been similarly misled in regard to the dialogues in question, 
his notorious conservatism leading him perhaps to disregard dis- 
senting voices, particularly since his studies in Plato were beyond 
not only his own peculiar province but also beyond that of his 
predecessors at the library. This consideration applies with even 
greater force to his acceptance of a work like the Minos concern- 
ing which there appears then to have been no dispute. 


§ V.—CAUSES FOR THE EXISTENCE OF PSEUDEPIGRAPHA.” 


It is needless here to consider all causes operative in the ancient 
world to produce confusion, error and deceit in the ascription of 
literary productions to given personages. It will suffice to refer 
to such as may have been active in the case of the Platonic canon. 
In the case of the dialogues, in which the author entirely disap- 
pears, the fact of their having no hall-mark, so to speak, upon 
them may in the first instance have led collectors to class the new 
claimants with those of Plato merely for convenience of compari- 
son and study; once there, it became difficult to distinguish 
between false and true. This source of confusion was certainly 
the more important because Plato’s dialogues not only set the — 
example for all others, but so materially influenced almost all 
writers of subsequent times that his thought and language even 
recur on every hand. But it is impossible to account for all in 
this way. The imitation in many cases goes so far that delib- 
erate fraud seems to be the only possible verdict. If some vied 
with Plato out of conceit of their own powers,— 


** Scilicet ut plausus quos fert Agrippa feras tu, 
Astuta ingenuum volpes imitata leonem,’’— 


17 See my notes to these dialogues, and Zeller, II A, p. 441, n. 1. 

18 See Susemihl, I, p. 442. | 

19 Dr. Gudeman, op. cit., has touched upon this subject in its different 
aspects, varying with the classes of literature, and those who do not wish 
to refer to Susemihl will find his treatment sufficient. 


12 


and claimed their productions; others were satisfied with the 
secret exultation of having so successfully mimicked him as to 
have the credulous public accept their work for genuinely Platonic. 
Inthe Academy there can have been little call for falsifications to 
serve the ends of propaganda; but in epistle XII we seem to 
have an example of a “‘lie to conceal a lie” floated by the Neo- 
Pythagoreans,” for that very purpose of propaganda. Whether 
pecuniary inducements, on which so much stress has been laid in 
modern times,” were to any extent operative in calling forth the 
Pseudo-Platonica cannot be determined. At all events, it is 
probable that the incessant practice in all varieties of literature 
fostered in the schools of rhetoric, and the growing interest in 
biography and antiquities, had far more to do with the presence 
of these spurious works. If, for example, Wilamowitz is right in 
calling Antigonus of Carystus (b. ca. 290 B. C.) the originator of 
scientific biography, we should be able to consider him as an 
opponent of the already prevalent tendency to imaginary or 
apocryphal anecdotic narratives of the lives of philosophers, such 
- as appear in the spurious Leféers. 


§ VI.—CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PSEUDO-PLATONICA. 


Difficult as it is at this stage of the enquiry, it seems best to 
attempt some sort of characterization of the Pseudo-Platonica. 
Since, however, this can be adequately done only after the whole 
of Greek literature has been examined, as above indicated, we 
must confine the statement for the present to an enumeration of 
the more important of such marks as seem to distinguish that 
body of works from the genuine writings of Plato. But to do 
even so much in detail in this introduction, apart from the given 
instances, would lead us too far afield. The following table there- 
fore deals only with the more general categories, omitting such 
characteristics as are sporadic or admit of no satisfactory classi- 
fication. Nevertheless, as Plato says, Legg. 859 B: od dueyepay- 
téov, ef petaed vowobetodytes ta pev eOepev, tMy 0’ Ett Dtacxorodpev 
mépt* vowobétat yap ytyvéueOa add’? obx eopséy mw, taya Oe lows dy 
yevotueda, 


20 Cf. note 50 to the Lefzers. 

21 The passages on which this supposition rests are principally Galen, de 
nat. hom., I 42, and Ammonius to Aristotle’s Categ. p. 10. Cf. Susemihl, 
I, p. 25, Gudeman, p. 61, and Bernays, Heraklitische Briefe, Appendix 1. 


13 


(1). Post-Platonic and post-classical diction is naturally the 
most obvious test, when the wreck of Greek literature permits a 
decision. (2). Unplatonic diction is more difficult to establish, 
when it does not fall under the preceding head, because of Plato’s 
unsurpassed versatility and freedom; but close observers of his 
usage readily detect the fraud when his unfailing felicity of 
expression gives place to bungling. (3). Closely allied to the 
foregoing is the distinct want of taste displayed in cheap 
rhetoric, tags culled from the poets and insipidly foisted in, 
unnecessary accumulation of illustrative examples, affectation, 
and ostentatious parading of erudition. All this is hostile to 
Attic grace and highly characteristic of the degenerate style 
affected in the Alexandrian age. But, in applying this test, it 
must be remembered that many of these tendencies had their 
origin in the sophistic training which Plato opposed not only by 
open remonstrance but also, and more frequently too, with sly 
travesty now almost imperceptible. (4). Hereand there a signifi- 
cant failure in the manipulation of the Platonic dialogue-form 
may be detected, frequently due to the overruling rhetorical 
interest of the production. (5). Commonplaces, Socratic or 
Platonic, are received ready-made and juggled with according to 
the intention of the author, no effort being made to lead up to 
them. Taking these as its points of departure, the argument then 
becomes either wholly eristic, or, even where generally legitimate, 
_ quite superficial, showing that we are not in the sphere of true 
dialogues of search, but following an author with a position to 
develop, though he may prefer to mask it in dialogue rather than 
resort to direct exposition. (6). In a few instances we find 
extensive verbatim quotations from Plato. (7). But far more fre- 
quent is the occurrence of freer zmitations and allusions to striking 
passages. Here, however, great caution is necessary. Parallels 
and correspondences between different passages penned by an 
author are natural and unavoidable in proportion as his modes of 
thought are individual. No writer, however fertile, can hope to 
state his most familiar conceptions otherwise than in the peculiar 
light in which they first or most vividly impressed him. Hence, 
taken singly, this cannot constitute a sufficient test; but when on 
other evidence a production is liable to grave suspicion, nothing 
can be more conclusive than this characteristic. For the authors 
of these forgeries were so familiar with Plato’s most quotable say- 
ings that their style and language abound in reminiscences of his 


14 


works. But these, in turn, range from the most obvious to the 
almost undiscernible, and must be judged rather as a whole than 
singly. (8). In afew works there appears an effort to establish 
by argument the propriety of certain favorite expressions of 
Plato’s, as of eb xpdétrew in App. IIL and XIII, of gay dedg 20édy 
in Alc. J and Theages, and of deta potpa in I], A. This indu- 
bitably marks the epigoni. (9). Equally decisive is the turning 
to serious account of Platonic jests, as in Theages (n. 10) and 
I], A. (n. 3). (10). Dependence on works already condemned as 
spurious. This test is so obvious that it needs no comment. 
(11). Neglect of logical precision in what purports to be serious 
reasoning, evistic guizbbling, and undisguised contradiction. (12). 
Ultra-religtousness and mysticism. (13). A philosophical stand- 
point entirely unplatonic. (14). Not a few works reveal depen- 
dence on the writings of Aristotle. (15). Even post-Aristotelian 
thought occurs. 


§ VII.—APPROXIMATE CHRONOLOGICAL RESULTS. 


It seems proper here to state in brief the conclusions relative to 
the probable succession and dates of the several works herein 
treated, to which the investigation has led. For the basis of this 
arrangement the reader is referred to the separate discussions in 
Part II. 

(1). The “pinomis doubtless appeared shortly after Plato’s 
death under the combined influence of Plato’s latest thought and 
Aristotle’s juvenile productions, but no definite traces of its 
having created interest can be observed in the other Pseudo- 
Platonica. (2). Alcibiades J, however, which was written abou® 
300 B. C., found great favor with all later admirers of Plato and, 
in particular, with the authors of later forgeries, almost all of 
which betray a knowledge of it. (3). About the same time with 
it appeared the Avyxzas, and (4) somewhat later, Alcibiades L/, 
which is conceived, probably by another author, as a companion 
piece to the /zvst. Then came (5) &%. V/Z say ca. 290, which 
seems to depend on Alc. / and //; and (6) Theages, a supple- 
ment to Alc. /, and subsequent to Alc. //, together with (7) 
Anterastae, clearly later than Alc. J and perhaps called forth by 
Peripatetic criticisms of Plato. (8). App. VIII and III must fall 
_in about here, say 270; and with them (9) Cltopho, which uses 
Alc, J as an unquestionable document for the knowledge of Plato’s 
doctrine and depends also on Anterastae. (10). Hifparchus and 


15 


Minos originated about 250 B.C., and between that date and, 
say, 200, appeared the greater number of (11) App. II, IV, V, 
VI, IX, X, and possibly, though not probably, (12) ep? ’Aperijs 
and Jlept Arzatov, the latter of which depends on Minos. (13). 
Sisyphus and Demodocus seem to have been written about 150 
B. C. and (14) App. 1, XI, XII, XIII, at dates ranging perhaps 
from 200 to 50 B.C. (15). Alcyon and Axiochus scarcely origi- 
nated before the first Pre-Christian century, nor (16) fp. XIV- 
XVIII before the third, A.D. (17). The Definitions, first quoted 
as Platonic by Ammonius (fl. ca. 500 A. D.), may not have 
existed much earlier, though it is possible that they were col- 
lected by one of the later Stoics.” 


2 They contain, besides Platonic or quasi-Platonic definitions, some 
which are Peripatetic and some clearly Stoic. I fancy the compilation of 
philosophical definitions in this eclectic fashion began with the Stoics 
under the influence of the lexicographical zeal developed in the Alexan- 
drian age. Thus the Definitions of Sphaerus, a pupil of Zeno, were held 
in great esteem among the Stoics (Cic. Tusc., 1V 24, 53). But his were 
doubtless Stoica/ definitions. The eclectic procedure seen in our Defini- 
tions must have originated later. 


PART IL—PSEUDO-PLATONICA. 


§ .—AxIOCHUS. 


The Axiochus is one of the many works, known as ‘‘ Consola- 
tions,’ produced in antiquity under the primary inspiration of 
Plato’s Phaedo.' After Aristotle’s Eudemus (or xept doyis), which 
must have been largely of this nature,’ the most influential subse- 
quent production was doubtless Crantor’s Iept [evOovs. It has now 
become the fashion to trace all others directly or indirectly back 
to this, a procedure which seems fully justified by the facts. But 
it appears to me that Corssen* has proved so much at least, that 
the Axiochus, like Cicero’s Consolatio and Bk. I of the Zzs- 
culana and Pseudo-Plutarch’s Consolatio ad Apollonium, what- 
ever other sources they may have drawn upon, used some 
authority who blended Stoic and Epicurean‘ thoughts with the 


1On this whole series see Buresch in Leipziger Studien, vol. IX. But 
his attempt (p. 9 ff.) to claim 4x, for Aeschines the Socratic is futile. The 
Ax. contains thoughts and expressions from Phaedo (cf. Ax, 370C with 
Ph. 114 C, Ax. 370 D with PA. 114 B), but we need not suppose that its 
author derived them thence at first hand. The beginning of the dialogue 
reminds one of Rep. and Symp., while § 2 init. recalls Zyszs 203 A. 

2 See the long quotation from it in Plut. Cons. ad Apollonium, 115 B ff. 
Cf. also note 7 to ‘/utroduction.’ 

’Corssen in Rhein. Museum (1881), vol. 36. I shall have to refer the 
student to this article for details concerning the relation of Cicero, Plutarch 
and Axiochus to each other and to a presumptive archetype. 

*On this see Corssen. In Axiochus 365 DE we have an application of 
Epicurus’ argument against the reality of death, cf. Diog. L., X 125; 366A: 
are tapeonapuévn <_Diimmler (Akademika, p. 281) proposes dceorapuévy after 
Plut. De Anima 3, but nothing is gained thereby> roi¢ répoce, 7 puyxy, cf. 
Epic. ap. Diog. L., X 63: 67¢ 9 puyy oGud éort AenTomepec Tap’ bAov TO GOpotoua 
mapeonappuévov (cf. X 66, in Usener’s Epicurea, scholion, p. 21 f.); 370 C: 
et uh TL Oeiov dvTwc évav rveipa TH Wuy7q, cf. the mvedua évOepuov of the Stoics, 
D. L., VII 157. Whatever may have been the connection of the Stoic Geiov 
mvevua with the afp of Diogenes of Apollonia, this passage is purely Stoic. 
Diimmler’s argument (0. c., p. 281) is insufficient to prove his point. 
Besides, gevxtac, 369 B, may show Stoic influence (cf, Zeller, III B, p. 25), 
though Arist. Eth. 1172 19 and Sext. adv. Math. VII, 11 would seem to 

_mark it as Cyrenaic, unless we assume a Stoic recension of Aristotle. Cf. 
Eucken, Phil. Term, p. 28, n. 1. The form ‘Exaépyy in 371 A is not found 
before Callim. IV 292, “Apyy occurring Hdt. 1V 35. 


17 


original Platonic. Whether this was Posidonius or not can hardly 
be determined, butit is an over-hasty conclusion to infer from 
aresemblance in its better portions to the fragments of Teles® 
that it originated, like them, in the third cent. B.C. Those very 
parts its author professes to derive from Prodicus.’ It is, indeed, 
only too evident that Prodicus could not have written all that 
is contained in the speech attributed to him, but this does not 
prove that its reference to him was wholly unwarranted. It is 
at least very instructive to observe the gradual additions to the 
list of hardships to which youth is exposed.’ If there was no 
such epideictic discourse by Prodicus, our author was at least 
clever enough to refer to the one reproduced in Xenophon.® But 
despite his cleverness, and in part because of it, he has betrayed 
himself.” In spirit the Axzochus stands most closely related to 


5As Susemihl (I, p. 22, n. 65) does, following Wilamowitz, Ant. von 
Karystos, p. 295 f.,n. 6. The fragments of Teles are in Stobaeus, Floril. 
(ed. Mein.), vol, I, pp. 123-128; II, pp. 65-70; III, pp. 77, 186-189, 234 ; 
IV, pp. 49-53, 164. The style of Telesis clear and the language pure; but 
how is it with the Axiochus? See infra, notes 8, 11 and12, Diimmler on 
general grounds agrees essentially with Susemihl as to the date, fixing it 
(Akad. p, 282) not long after Bion the Borysthenite (fl. ca. 300 B. C.). 

6 Axiochus, 366 D ff. 

TI have no doubt that there was once some such production of Prodicus, 
though it seems impossible to attribute so much of the contents of the 
argument to that Sophist as Diimmler does, o. c., p. 280. Plato seems to 
presuppose a work on that topic, Zyszs 207 D ff.; Sophocles, O. C. 1211 ff., 
dwells in a general way upon the theme; it is caught up in the Zpinomis, 
973 D ff., and then it grows by regular accretion. In Teles (Stobaeus, 
Floril. III, p. 234 f.) the list is long, but contains nothing impossible in the 
third cent.; in Cebes’ Tab., c. XIII the masters specified are: roiyrai, 
paropec, dtadexrixol, wovorkol, apiOuntixol, yewmét pat, aorpoAdyo, ‘Hdovixol, 
ILepemarckot (sic), kpetexot, It would almost seem that our author 
tried to complete this list; but he was too well read openly to display his 
fraud, for (see 368 D: ov dé mpanyv ol déxa otpatnyoi, cf, Apol. 32 B) he tried 
to give his work the appearance of reality, and so revised the catalogue 
(366 D £.): radaywyoi, ypaupatiotai, madotpiBa, KkpetiKxol, yewpéTtpal, 
taxtixot, Socrates could not mention Peripatetics and Academics, but he 
could single out the (now) famous gymnasiums Avxecov cal ’Axadnuia! Even 
if the Axzochus should not be later than Cebes’ Tablet, which I would date, 
with Zeller (II A, p. 242, n. 6) and Wilamowitz (Antig. von Karyst., p. 293), 
not earlier than the 1st cent. B. C,, it cannot, as will appear, be much earlier. 

8 Ax. 367 A: dpovrideg avtixpug trédvoav Kai diahoyiouot (= diddoyo. as in 
Plut. 2, 180 C?), riva tHv Tov Biov dddv évorhoerat, cf. Xen. Mem. II 1, 21 ff. 

9In 367 A mention is made of measures adopted by the Areopagus in the 
3rd cent. to correct the vices of the young. These were probably instituted 


18 


Alcyon, and the mysticism with which Socrates is surrounded 
reminds one of Zheages.” Its style, which is quite uneven, is in 
some passages very like that of Seneca," and some of the words 
employed reveal a kinship with the Pseudo-Pythagorean and 
forged medical literature.” The first century B. C. is as early as 
we can date a dialogue, which is so uncritically eclectic. 


§ II.—ALcyon. 


This dialogue is usually published also among the works of 
Lucian, although no one supposes it to be one of them; for there 
is reason for believing that it was written before his time.’ The 


so much before his time that he thought they might have originated in the 
5th cent.; his avoidance of too evident anachronisms (cf. note 7) making it 
seem unlikely that, if those ordinances were recent, he would have referred 
tothem. The use of the tell-tale word xpitixot was probably a mere un- 
conscious bit of padding. His cleverness is shown in his fondness for rare 
words, but this rendered his dialogue strikingly unplatonic, over 100 words 
and phrases foreign to Plato occurring here in ten pages. Then Plato 
located Hades zz the earth; here (371 B) it is at the nadir. The Stoics’ 
interest in astrology and meteorology misled him into such words as these 
(370 E): petewpodoye kai dieyue Tov aidtoy Kai Oeiov dpduov. Again, how impos- 
sible with Socrates is this, 370 C: Ta Tov kéopov mabjuata raparfgacbar rpd¢ 
Tov aidva, et wh Te Oeiov bvtw¢ Eviv rvevua TH Puyn! Cf. Cicero, Tusc. I, §63: 
‘Ne in sphaera quidem eosdem motus Archimedes sine divino ingenio 
potuisset imitari,’’ and see the ogacpiov in the Letters, n. 45- 

10 Clinias says, 364 C: d¢6évroc¢ cov udvoy paicel, cf. note 10 to Theages. 

1 Note the profusion of epithets in 368 D, 369 A, 371 E. 

12T cannot here go into details; but for ox#voc, 366 A (which occurs, to be 
sure, in Democr., frag. 6, Mullach), see Anton, De Origine Libelli T[epz 
Puyac Kéouw xai boro¢ Inscripti, p. 270 ff.; for ofc, 365 D, Anton, p. 360 f.; 
for gAeypyov7, 368 C, Anton, p. 420, n. 612. The case of oxjvoc, however, 
shows that this point must not be strongly urged. 

1 Diog. L., III 62: 7 ’AAkvdv Aéovrog revo¢ elvar doxei, Kaba dyot baBwpivoc ; 
Athenaeus, XI 506 C: kal 7 ’AAKvdov Afovrog tov ’Akadnuaixod, O¢ dyno Nukiac 
6 Nixastc. Of Leon we know nothing. Of Nicias’ date we are likewise 
ignorant, but he probably lived under the early Empire (cf. Suseminhl, I, p. 
505 f.),in which case he may still have been Favorinus’ source. Brink- 
mann (Quaestionum de dialogis Platoni falso addictis specimen, Bonn, 
1891) makes Nicias a contemporary of Sylla, and hence dates the Alcyon 
in the 2d or 3d cent. B. C. I wish here to acknowledge my indebtedness 
to Brinkmann, with whose results I generally agree. His dissertation, 
however, reached me only after I had collected largely the same materials. 
I shall therefore refer for further details to his work, as it seems unneces- 
sary here to repeat all that is contained in it. 


19 


strict observance of the laws of hiatus’ and the affectedly poetic 
color of its diction® suffice to mark it as a post-Platonic production, 
while its vocabulary forbids placing it earlier than the 2d cent. 
B. C.*. The Stoic bias of the author is so manifest that Brink- 
mann’s elaborate argument seems almost superfluous’; but the 
imitation of Plato is sufficiently apparent to justify the treatment 
of this dialogue among the Pseudo-Platonica.* The enthusiastic 
description of nature in halcyon days with which it begins and the 
scenic setting of its close, when compared with the corresponding 
parts of the Phaedrus, reveal unmistakably the conscious imitator. 
Again, Chaerephon’s question, §11: z@¢ zote yoy metoOjvat tots 86 
apyis, @ Swxpates, ws 2& dpvidwy yuvaizés mote eyévovto H dpviOes ex 
yuvatx@y » is substantially the same as that put to Socrates in 
Phaedrus 229 C. Here, however, it serves only to introduce a 
Stoic defence of the ‘miraculous conducted with due fervor and 
unction. The ultra-religious mysticism displayed is as little 
Platonic as the pantheistic identification of God with nature. 
Finally, the zazvefé with which Socrates’ supposed bigamy is 


2See Brinkmann, p. 7 ff. 

3§1: modbOpynvoc, moAbdaxpuc, Kovpidiov avdpa, 760m diAiag; §I1: akbpuavror, 
yadgviov ; §1I1: Bpovrac avéuwy 7’ éfaiora peyéOn (cf. Ps.-Plat. Zp. VII 351 D: 
Xetpdvuv dé éaiovov Kai anpooddxntrov péyeboc) ; §1V : AaiAaw; §V i: éx yevetge, 
roAuunxaver ; §VI: auérpytov; §VII: avaidAote, pédittav aréderse (this use of 
arodecxvivee and similar verbs was widely copied from Plato, see note 2 to 
Hipparchus) codyy Geiov wédutog épyativ; §VIIL: abavatwv = Gedy, d dpi renee 
peawoé, 

4§1: wAalouévy, late or poetic; §II: 7yov, Hellenistic; gAavdpiay (cf. 
§VIII: @iAavdpov) ‘love of husband’ is late; §II1: édixrov =‘ possible’ and 
avégixta, with eimeiv égexrov (§V) and Gewpeiv épixvovuévorg (§ V1) are all late ; 
§IV: ruyxdv iowe is Hellenistic, and §1V : éw¢ rov vy is not Attic. Abstract 
plurals, like evdiacc, §1I1, and advvayiaic, §V, occur indeed in Isocrates, etc., 
but become common only in Hellenistic times. 

5 Here I shall refer to Brinkmann, p. 16 ff., mentioning only the figure of 
the potter, in §1V, or moulder of wax images so common with the Stoics, 
and the thought, §VII: réyvaic, d¢ Adyoc Tivdy, lepaic aibépog peyadov mpooypo- 
uévn, which is equivalent to naming that sect. 

6The author indulges in Plato’s favorite postponement of epi, the use of 
mavToc paddaov, the frequent addition of ric, ri, and other familiar devices. 
Again, ovyva dé kai dia vyriétyta ppevav* TE bvTt yap vaATio¢g éoiKev Elvat Ta¢ 
dvOpwroc, kai 6 révu yépwr, éret Tot iKpo¢ Tavu Kal veoytAAde 6 Tov. Biov ypdvoc 
mpoc¢ Tov mavra aiava, ZIII1, may just possibly be a reminiscence of 77m. 22 B 
(cf. Epin. 974 A and Rep. 608 C). The word aypaupdroiw, §VII, seems to 
occur in this sense of ‘z//iterate’ only in Zim, 23 B and Critias 109 D in 
classic authors. 











x IBR A 


‘ipsa IV -ERSITY 


OF — 
SALIFORNIA. 


20 


referred to is another mark ofa late and unsuspecting scribe.’ It 
seems most probable that the A/cyon was written during the first 
cent. B. C. 

§ III.—Jlept Acxatov, 


This sketch’ is related to the Republic somewhat as Ilep? 
"Apetis is to the Meno, but its author is more independent of 
his original. His independence, however, serves only to disclose 
the fraud; for it consists chiefly in selecting without philosophical 
insight statements made by various characters in the first book of 
the Republic’ in utter disregard of their subsequent acceptance 
or rejection, and in ignoring, like the CZ/opho, the masterly 
solution of the problem of justice set forth in the succeeding 
books. The conviction thus created of the work’s spuriousness 
receives confirmation from the observation of its indebtedness to 
other dialogues,’ and not only to genuine ones, but also to the 
spurious AZinos.*. We have no adequate data upon which to base 


™This libellous story seems to have originated with Aristoxenus or 
Demetrius Phalereus, and, since Luzac, has become universally discredited. 

This dialogue and its companion piece, II. A., are not even expressly 
mentioned in the list of dialog nothi (D. L., III 62), but Hermann (Gesch. 
der plat. Phil., III, p. 154) suggests that they belong to the eight axégadou 
there noted (if one accepts his conj. axégadou 7” for "Axépadoc 7) as spurious. 
See my note 27 to the Minos. 

* This is too obvious to require proof. Note, ¢. g., how in 374 B. C. our 
author uses the argument (from Ref. 332 B ff., 335 B ff.), showing that 
justice cannot be defined as doing good to friends and harm to foes. 

SII. A. 372, uh por obTwe, cf. Prot. 318 B; the examples in 372-373 A are 
derived with little change from Zuthyphro 7 B ff.; for rd imepéyor, 373 E, 
see Hipp. Maj. 294 B; with 373 E: 76 wév xdtw pérov év roic Cvyoi¢ Bapb, Td 
dé Gvw Kovoov, compare Zim. 63 B ff., esp. 63 D: xovdov obv aitd mpoceiphxa- 
pev Kai Tov Térop etc bv Bialéuel” ava, Td 0’ Evavtiov Tobroug Té00¢ Bapd Kal Karo; 
in 375 A we have réuvew kai kaiewv kai ioyvaiverv, for which see Gorg. 521 E 
and Pol, 293 B. 

* Page 372 reproduces Minos 313 B, except that in the latter we read dwuc 
and Adyoc where in the former were d¢@aAudc and dwr7. This difference 
leads finally to the confusion of dcxacoobvy (the correlate of duc, Adyo¢ and 
téxv7 in the following quotation) and dckaotucf (the correlate of o¢0aAudc and 
govy, as well as dpyavov) in I. A. 373 A: Ta dixaca Kat rddixa tive oKorovvTec 
diaytyvacKkouev Opydvy, Kai peta TOD Opydvov tim Téyvn Tp dobEV 
(=ye mp6c¢), and what follows. Hence Socrates, after asking <ri rovrtec 
dtaxpivovow oi dikactai> repli rdv dikaiwy Kai Gdixwv; helps his hesitating com- 
panion by suggesting, 373 C, Aéyovrec, od. This exceedingly unplatonic 
turn is thus translated by Susemihl: ‘Sie (denken nach und) sprechen 


21 


a judgment as to the precise time when this sketch was written, 
but the use of zpdcdev = ‘insuper’® suffices to show that it 
originated after the decay of the Greek language was far on its 


way.° 
§ 1V.—Ilepi Aperis. 4 


If not an unsuccessful sketch made in good faith by a novice to 
assure himself that he had caught Plato’s manner as well as the 
substance of his doctrine respecting virtue, I/ep) “Apet7s is a 
cunningly contrived plagiarism from the J/eno,' omitting the dis- 
tinctively philosophical suggestions’ of its original while doubly 
emphasizing its half-mystical conclusion. In the Jeno, as else- 
where in Plato, the teachableness of virtue is made to depend 
upon the prior question as to its true nature, which is here not so 
much as raised. On the other hand, that demotic virtue, which 
Plato there concludes must come to man Jeva pofpa, is here 
made supreme; and a mere jest, there casually let fall by the 
“way, is converted into the crowning argument to prove that 
virtue is not attained gdcec,* an alternative very simply disposed 


(dann). Sage, ist’s nicht so?’ The parenthesis is not in the text: it 
means merely ‘by the use of speech.’ See also 373 D: Adyo¢ éoriv, dc 
fouxev, « Ta dixata Kat ddiKa kpiverat, where Adyoc = dwrf, a very different thing 
from the statement in the Repudlic 582 D, which our author may have had 
partially in mind: Adyo: dé tobrov <sc. Tov Kpivecbar> pddiota dpyavov. In 
TI, A, 372: Kal édv pe Epn btw Woy7 dvoua, Ep cor & yeyvdoKouev, we have a 
possible reminiscence also of A/c, J, 127 E ff., esp. 133 C: éyouev obv eireiv, 
bre got THe Wuyhe Kupidtepov 7H TovTo, wept 6 7d eidévar Te Kal gpovetv éoTi; ovK 
éyouev. See notes 28-31 to Ale. J. 

5373 A, the passage quoted in foregoing note: unless it can conceivably 
mean ‘previously,’ to suggest the priority of the réyvy to the dpyavov; but 
then yerd is not in place. 

6] do not believe that either II. A. or II, A. originated before 200 B. C. 
Possibly they appeared much later, See Jutr. §VJZZ, 

1The bulk of II. A. is taken verbatim from that dialogue ; the correspond- 
ing passages are these: 376A = Meno 70 A; 376 B = Meno 94 ff.; 377 Bff. 
= Meno 93 Df.; 378 B= Meno 94 D; 379 AB = Meno 89 B; 379 D= 
Meno 99 D ff. 

? Particularly the reference of apet7 to dpdvyoug (Meno 89 A) and the com- 
parison hinted at in ‘ Teiresias amid the shades’ (M/eno 100 A). 

3 Meno 89 A: Ovxovy ei tavta obtwc exer, obk dv elev dboer oi ayabot.: Ot por 
doce, Kai yap av mov kai tdd’ Hv. ei pboer of dyabol éytyvovro, fodv mov Gv 
juiv ot éyiyvwoKov tév véwy Tove ayabods tag dboeic, ode mueic dv TaparaBédrrec 
éxeivov arognvavrav épvddrrouey év dxpordAet. In IT. A, this becomes a long dis- 
quisition (378 C-379 C), beginning in this serious strain : dpa ¢éces obovra 


22 


of in the J/eno by the subsumption of dpet7 under gpdyyotct A 
minute comparison of the corresponding passages reveals how 
utterly the life of the original has been eliminated in making the 
abstract; but the excerptor aspired also to be artistic and intro- 
duced gratuitously an insipid jest of his own.> As in the Letters 
the form of address, ed zpdrtrew, was justified by argument, and 
in Alcibiades /, and at even greater length in Zheages, the paren- 
thesis, ¢a» Oed¢ 20é4y, so here we discover in the attempt to 
establish dialectically the necessity of dea yotpa, one of the most 
characteristic marks of forgery. Our author has, moreover, left 
traces of his indebtedness to other dialogues® besides the Jena. 


§ V.—DEMODOCUS. 


The Demodocus consists of four distinct sophistical exercita- 
tions, which receive their name from the circumstance that one 
Demodocus’ is addressed, at the beginning of the first, by the 


oi ayaboi; Kai tovto tHdé TH OKOTOvYTEC iowe Gv ebpoywev, Who can fail to 
detect the bungling imitator? And yet Socher fancied this was Plato’s 
first draught! In view of the turn given to this conceit at the close, 
reminding one of the story of Lot (379 D: 6rav BovAnrar Oedc eb mpafar Tod, 
dvdpac ayabods éveroincev* btav dé uéAAQ KaKOc mpage TdALC, EFeide Tobe Gvdpag 
Tove ayabove éx tabtye THe TéAEwe 6 Gedc*), one wonders whether the author may 
not have had in mind Antisthenes’ saying (Diog. L., VI 5): tér’ én Tac 
moAEg ardAAvobat btav uA Sbvwvtat Tobe dabAove ard THY orovdaiwy diaxpivety. 

* Meno 89 A. 

5377 D: ov kal ob jor doxeicg Tov Erépov épacb#vat, continuing 377 E, aad’ owe 
dv éyévovto, 

6 With bori¢ airiay Eyer dia THY ToObTWY dutAiav codd¢ TE Kai ayabdc yeyovévat 
(376 C) compare Ade, J, 119 A: bore aitiav Eyer did THv IlepixAove ovvovotav 
copetepog yeyovévae. Here, therefore, we can again trace the influence of 
Alc. J. The following passage in 376 D: éorwy obv btw Avorredei wy év ayaboic 
oikety Gvdpdow GAA’ év Kakoic¢; . . . . wérepov épyov éoTi TOv pév Gyabav BAarrew, 
Tay O& KaKOV adedsiv, } Tovvavtiov ; Tovvavriov, Oi pév ayabol apa agedodvor, oi 
dé kaxol BAdrrovow; Nai, “Eorw obv botic BobAetac BAdntecbar paddAov F 
Ogereioba; Ov rave. Ovdeic dpa BobAerat év Tovypoic oiKeiv WaAAov h Ev YpHoToic, 
—is found almost verbatim, 4fo/. 25 CD. It is perhaps worth noting that 
the author, though he began with dya@oi and xaxoi, ends with ypyoroi and 
movypol, as in the Apology, Compare also 377 A with Protag. 326 E ff. 

1In the Zheages a Demodocus comes to advise with Socrates concerning 
his son, and it may be inferred that the character was chosen with reference 
_ to that fact; if so, this is one more illustration of the schematic nature of 
the work. The Z7heages was then already in existence and known to our 
author. 


23 


speaker whose identity is not indicated. The first section proves 
the futility of taking counsel. This would suggest its probable 
dependence on Alcibiades /, and in fact a few details lend further 
color to this surmise,’ while the Repudlic® and Gorgias* may 
likewise have been drawn upon by its author. The second seeks 
to show the needlessness of hearing both parties to a dispute, 
and betrays no specific imitation of Plato; nor does the third, a 
quibble on the ambiguity of the term duapraverv, leaving unde- 
cided the question whether he who fails to loan money to a 
friend or he who fails of effecting a loan dyaptdvet.2 The fourth 
theme is: av0p brov Tig xaTnydpet edn Oeray, Ste tayéws xal TOIg TvyodGt 
dvOpadrots Xyovet xtotedbot, to every element of which exception is 
taken until in the end the narrator says: tadc’ oby Aeydvtwy abtady 
Axdbpovy, tla mote det mtotedety xat tiow od. The style of the whole 
is intolerably repetitious,® and the diction’ betrays its post-classic 
origin. Its meagreness, lack of color, and the schematic char- 
acter of the dialogue are conclusive against Platonic authorship ; 
but the relation of the first section to the Szsyphus, though hardly 


2 Dem. 380 D: f ov tava of ériotdpevos EvuBovdebovor wavtec, cf. Ale. J, 
111 A ff,, esp. 111 B: ovxovv rove eiddrac duodoyeiv re GAAHAotc Kai up Stagépecbat ; 
where this idea of agreement as a test of knowledge is much insisted on; 
but this thought is repeated Minos 316 D, and in other passages, vid. note 
14 to Alc, J. Compare also Dem. 381 B: epi dv areipwe éyovor, with A/c. J, 
107 B, where experience as the basis of advice is likewise emphasized, and 
Dem. 381 E: kai tavra rap’ ovdevde uabdvrec ovd’ abroi eipévrec, we have again 
the familiar disjunction, for which see note 8 to A/c. J, 

3 Dem. 380 D: ixavic ... Kal ec, 381 A: évde pdvov adkoboaor ééhpxer, 
ibid. B: ei¢ ixavog éorac may have been suggested by Rep. 502 B, ele ixavoc 
yevouevoc, k. T, Ag but see also Gorg. 475 E; éuol d& od éapxeic ei¢ Ov pdvoc, 
and ibid. 505 E: iva wor 70 tov ’Exiydppov yévyrai, & mpd Tov dbo dvdpec eAeyor, 
ei¢ Ov ixavoc yévowar; though the thought is different. 

* Dem, 382 A: obtw¢ év diy yxpdvy Kai dvtag Tooobrovc, apparently speaking 
of jury-pleading, vid. Gorg. 455 A (under similar circumstances), ov ydp 
dprov dyhov y’ av dévatto TocovTov év dAiyw xpdvy SiddEat obTw weydAa Tpdyyara. 

SAlthough the parallel is not complete, this quibble well repays com- 
parison with the similar one on duaprdvew in Antiphon’s Tetral. II. 

® Tt will suffice to refer to 380 A ff., as also to 383 D-384 A, where éudavilew 
and éugaivery occur sixteen times. In parts III and IV eize recurs seven- 
teen and oleoGa: deiv four times. 

Note dpxjv = ‘anyhow’ (381 D), ovurinrew = cup Baiver (382 D); 1d 
tédoc evtvyia (382 E) would be an interesting witness to late origin if, as 
seems likely, it is a reminiscence of 10 téAoc dvorvyia in Euripides’ Bacchae 
(v. 388), a play especially popular in later antiquity. In 381 E we have 
oidare, vd. Alc. Z/, n. 8. 


24 


a mere chance similarity, is not easy to determine. On the whole 
it is most probable that the two works originated in the same 
period and under the same circumstances.® 


§ VI.—SIsvPHUS. 


In regard to the Sisyphus we are chiefly interested to know 
when and under what influences it may have been written.’ It 
consists of a clever but wholly eristic argument directed against 
the utility of taking counsel.? The vocabulary® and style* are 
such that one is compelled to seek its origin in the age of deca- 
dence, and evidence of another nature will be found to corroborate 
these indications. The manner in which the problem of the 
Oixhactacpos tod x0fov is mentioned in 388 E is highly suggestive 
of the Alexandrian age,’ and the interest displayed in geometry 


8 For further discussion see the section on the Sisyphus, 

1TIt is one of the dialogi nothi, D. L., III 62. 

2It confesses its eristic character in 388 D, 390 B and at the close. Its 
name Sisyphus may have been selected to characterize the fruitless 
endeavor to attain a comprehension of foviAebecbar. 

3 Note the lax use of words denoting intellectual processes, like év vofoer, 
338 B (cf. the similar use of véyoue among the Sceptics, Sext, Emp. Pyrrh. 
II 10), éror#un alongside of eixacia and oyxedsacudc in 390 C. Susemihl’s 
conj. of avetiornuootvy is impossible, and Miiller’s éioraoce is unnecessary. 
The sceptical age to which we must refer the dialogue will account for such 
unmeaning disintegration of a term once connoting a definite act of mind. 
See also repiepyia, 387 C; éorovdacuévac, 390 B; mpoc Tov Acdéc, 388 B. This 
phrase, with the article, I believe is nowhere else to be found. So perapozo- 
Aéoync, 389 A, although perewpodéoync occurs in Rep. 489 C; but we have 
no evidence of yetapovo in composition in the classical period. Again 
morAdkic, 388 A, must be taken = ‘ferchance’ rather than = ‘often’; but 
this use of roAAd«ic without e or uf is quite anomalous. In doe éxirvyxd- 
vovot Aéyovtes TEpi TOV avTov TAAHOA, 388 A, TOv is evidently to be cancelled. 

4Note the occurrence of drw¢ Gy with past ind. in d7w¢ dv cvvyKpod quiv, 
387 A, and drac dy édbvacbe, 390 B: cf. Goodwin, MT. §335; Tepl ay ar pu 
émioratode, 390 A, is a construction quite impossible in classical Greek, 
and is not really given in the MSS, which read érictac@e, which is 
equally impossible; but concerning the parallel case of epi ov av déorTo 
diarpatrecbat, 389 B, there seems to be no doubt, so that it may be taken for 
granted that our author committed the solecism. There is no sense in 
388 C: pq uévror éxiotaito brov ely éevpeiv, ovy botic ein 6 Kaddiorparog, unless 
by a violent turn you render it thus: “but was ignorant of where C. was, 
' not of who he was.” 

5 This problem is treated at length by Cantor, Geschichte der Mathema- 
tik, Ed. 2, vol. I, pp. 198 ff., and pp. 213-222. Much will depend upon the 


. 


25 


may be in great part due to the brilliant advance in this science at 
that time, though Plato’s example and particularly the épcorexds 
héyos of the Meno were plainly kept in mind.® 

But the chief point of interest in the Szsyphus is the discussion 
itself, which grows out of the problem of the zp:r7prov. Aristotle 
seems to have given the impulse to the questions here raised. 
He was possibly the first to state definitely that advice pertains 
to the future.’ But he had also restricted counsel to such matters 
as depend on our free will and are not necessary ;* and, at the same 
time, he maintained that the law of the excluded middle did not 
apply to disjunctive propositions relating to a future event which is 
not necessary or which depends upona free will.’ Ofsuch an event 
one may say only 6repéddhec, not dte gotar.” Now we know 
that the Stoics, after declaring that everything occurs according 
to fate, denied this exception to the rule of the excluded middle,” 
and chiefly because of their interest in fate and divination.” 


- view taken of the letter quoted as written by Eratosthenes to Ptolemy 


Euergetes. ‘See Susemihl, I, p. 420, n. 64, 65. It is certainly difficult to 
decide in what relation Plato stood to the problem if it had taken on just 
that form in his day. ep. 528 Af. and Legg. 819 D ff. show conclusively 
that he was busied with stereometry in matters closely allied to the Delian 
problem, and it is possible that these passages really led to the mythical 
stories related by Plutarch (De Ei. 386, de Genio Socr. 579 B, Quaestt. 
Convv. 718 Ef.). However that may be, any reader of Plato must see that 
the abrupt manner in which the problem is here foisted in is wholly foreign 
to Plato’s wont. 

6 Meno 80 ff. But the Sisyphus entirely omits reference to anamnesis, by 
which Plato sought to refute the épiorixdc Adyoc. We may seize this oppor- 
tunity to remark that Socrates’ appearance in Pharsalus is perhaps due to 
a vague thought of the Mezo, for Socrates thus returns Meno’s visit to 
Athens. 

T Arist. Rhet. 13585 13: ypdvor dé éxdorov TotTwr ici TO wév ovuBovAetovti 6 
Léddwv + epi yap Tov Eoouévwr ovuBovdeber  mpotpétav H arotpérav. Cp. Sis. 
390 D: oby dravteg of Te eb Bovdevduevor Kat ol kaxae mept peAAdvTwv Tidy soecbat 
BovdAevovrat ; 

8 Rhet. 13592 32: boa dé && avdykye i) oti h tora } adbvatov Ff eivar f yevéoOar, 
mept 0& TobTwY ovK éoTL OvUuBoVAH . .. 38: ToLavTa 0’ éoTiv boa TéduKEV dvdyeobat 
Eig nude, Kal Ov 7 apxH THE yevéoews ép’ quiv éotiv, Cf. also Eth. Nic. I 4 ff. 

®De Interpr. c. 9. 

10 De Gener. et Corr. 337> 3. 

See Simplic. Categ. 103 8. Vd. Prantl, Gesch. der Logik, ae p-. 450, n 
136. 

2 This becomes certain from the significance which is attached to Aris- 
totle’s dictum. Cf, e.g. Ammonius’ Commentary to Section II of Arist. 
De Interp. (I quote from Orelli): tovro uév tor Td Gedpyua 7d viv br’ ’Apioro- 


26 


Hence, too, they limited divination to necessary results. But 
their means of knowing what was necessary, as their opponents 
pointed out, were inadequate. Now this discussion of prophecy 
became most exhaustive in the school of Carneades, and that the 
Stoics’ account of the disjunctive propositions was singled out by 
their critics as a weak point is shown by Cicero’s Academics.” 
And, though Cicero does not mention this argument among those 
against prophecy which he borrows from Carneades in De Div. II, 
it can hardly be doubted that Carneades did so employ it. From 
divination to such knowledge of the future as may serve to give 
advice concerning it there is but a short step, and it has been 
taken in the Szsyphus.“ In the first part of the Demodocus the 
conclusion is reached that consulting is vain, and therefore, sug- 
gests the Szsyphus, one should rather learn of those who know 
than exchange views with those who do not know. At this point 
then the question is enlarged upon in Sisyphus, and it is said to be 
impossible to give or obtain competent advice because it is con- 
versant, with futures which do not exist and hence cannot be 
known.” The question then 391 D: zpd¢ té ody xote dxofénovtes 
wopwrot zpaypa axoxahodow advOpm@rovs ebBodbhove te xart xaxo0Bobhovs 
elvai ttvas; is probably to be answered in the spirit of Carneades 
by saying that he is a good counsellor who advises what is prob- 
able, if he condescend to venture even so far."* One can hardly 


Tédove Kivotpevor, doxet uéev elvar AoyiKdv, kata GAHGevav O& Tpd¢ TavTa popla THC 
gtAocogiac éoTtiv avayKaiovs Kata Te yap THY OKAY didocOdiavy Tacav avayKy 
TpochauBaverv, @¢ ov mavta éoti Te Kal yiverae & avdyKyc, GAA’ éore Twa Kat 
Ep” Hiv, KT. A. 

13 Cic. Acad. Prior. Il 97, See also De Fato passim, esp. cc. 10 and 16, 
Alexander Aphrod. De Fato, c. X, XI, XX VII, and Prantl, I, p. 438, n. 109. 

14#The author shows his latent identification of the two activities in 
various ways; cf. diauavrevéuevov, 387 D; eixafovra, ibid., with which cf. 
Arist. Rhet. 1358b 20: ra wéAdovra mpoeixdlovtec 3 avtooyedidfovtec Kai diapav- 
Tevduevot, 390 B. Compare Menander, frag. 1, ‘0 tAeiorov voi Exwv | Mavtic¢ 
> Gpltoréc éote ctuBovdadc 6’ Gua. OF course divine foreknowledge 
and prophecy were intimately involved in this discussion of fate, as was 
also astrology. Cp. Wendland, Philon’s Schrift ti, d. Vorsehung, Berl. 
1892, and Alex. Aphrod. De Fato, ch. XXX ff. 

19 Sis. 390 E: ra wéAdovta obrw éote . . . doxel odv cot dvvatov elvat TOU mH 
évtoc Tuyelv Tivi; It is clear that this is a sceptic exaggeration of Aristotle’s 
statements which he would not sanction. Cf. Aristotle’s oérep’ érvyev and 
degrees of probability. See Minos 316 B: o¢ Gy dpa tov bvro¢g duapravy, Tov 
vomiwov duaptavet Kk. T. A. 

16 Aristotle who thought : of avOpwmo mpoc Td aAnbec mepbxacw ixavdc nat Ta 
theiw Teyxavovot THe aAnbeiag (Rhet. 13552 15 f.), and who defined 16 fovieb- 


Tr 





27 


doubt that we are here in the atmosphere of the New Academy,” 
although the corrupt style of our dialogue makes it improbable 
that any of Carneades’ immediate pupils composed it. Arcesi- 
laus’ revival of the Socratic method” may have joined with the 
constant inspiration of the Platonic dialogues” to call forth those 
late attempts which we meet in A/zpparchus, Minos, sab 
Demodocus, 1]. A. and Il. A, 


§ VII.—THE LETTERS. 


Could the Letters be omitted from a treatise on the Pseudo- 
Platonica, we might perhaps dispense with this section ; for, 
though details may yet be added, their spuriousness is no longer 
an open question.’ I shall endeavor to present the arguments 
against them as briefly as seems consistent with justice.’ 


eobat as ovadoyioude tic (IL, Mvfunc, 453% 13), would say (as Rhet. 13592 14 ff.) 
avayKaiov kal ry ovuBovAevorte kai TH Oixalomévm Kai TO Emiderxtix@ Exe Tpotracerc 
mepi Ovvatov kal advvdtov, kai ei yéyovev } uH, Kal et éorar 7} wh. On the Stoics’ 
divergence from Arist. regarding the adivarov see Zeller, III, a, p. 108, n. 3, 
and Prantl, I, p. 464 ff., n. 165 ff. I hope very soon to publish a paper in 
which the connection of this problem, together with others, with the system 
of Aristotle will be fully discussed. I shall then touch also upon the 
relation of Dio Chrysostom, Orat. XX VI, to Demodocus and Sisyphus. 

1 Compare Cic. Acad., II 36, 117: “Finge aliquem nunc fieri sapientem, 
nondum.esse: quam potissimum sententiam eliget et disciplinam? etsi 
quamcumque eliget, insipiens eliget.’’ Szsyfius* mention of Anaxagoras 
and Empedocles with the rest of the werapowdécyxat, 389 A, accords well with 
Carneades’ habit as illustrated in Acad. II. 

18 Both Carneades and Clitomachus were noted for their eloquence. 

19 Cf. Diog. L., 1V 28: mpato¢g tov Adyov éxivyoe tov bird TlAdtwvog mapadedo- 
uévov kai éroinoe Ov” Epwthoewe Kai aToKpicewe EpLOTLKOTEpOV. 

20 Perhaps the first definition of BovAevecfar in 388 A came ultimately from 
Euthyd. 275 D.. It is possible too that there occur a few reminiscences of 
Alc. I. Compare Sis. 389 C with A/c. J, 106 E and 107 D, and Sis, 390 A 
with 4/c. 106 D. Attention has already been called (n. 5) to our dialogue’s 
debt to Meno. 

1 After the work of Ast, Socher, Hermann, Steinhart, and Karsten, the 
question becomes one only of detail, though students of the subject will 
find much new matter in what follows. Besides the foregoing I am indebted 
to Wiegand’s translation and notes as well as to Zeller, and Susemihl’s 
Gesch. der Gr. Lit. in der Alexandrinerzeit, ch. XXXVII. Reinhold’s De 
Platon, Epistulis, 1886, on which see Zeller, Arch. f. Gesch. d. Phil., 1888, 
p. 614 ff., has vindicated the Zezters in some points, but could not prove 
their genuineness. 

2I cannot, of course, here cite my authority for each statement or give 
credit for every suggestion received from the works of predecessors. 


| UNIVERSITY 


‘ . 
~ oF J 
* a7 .. | 


28 


Whether or not Aristotle’s correspondence is to be considered 
the first genuine collection, as Wilamowitz conjectures,’ the year 
322 B. C. in which Aristotle died is a probable terminus post 
quem for all spurious letters of this sort. And since the catalogue 
of Thrasyllus (ap. Diog. L., III 61) specifies each of our Letters 
according to the addressee, these—that is, the first thirteen—can- 
not be dated later than about the first century B.C. 4%. V, VII 
and IX have the previous express attestation of Cicero;* but 
beyond this point we have little external support, though the fact 
that Aristophanes of Byzantium (ap. Diog. L., III 62) received 
certain letters (number not specified) into his trilogies about 200 
B.C. may aid the task of criticism. 

On what grounds then are we led to reject the Lef/ers? In 
general these points may be stated: (1) The best portion of our 
collection and that least unworthy of Plato consists in no true 
sense of letters, but rather of manifestos or harangues,° directed 
mediately or immediately to a very general public, and often 


’ Antigonos von Karystos, p. 151, note 15: ‘Die Existenz einzelner 
gleich fiir die Publication geschriebener Briefe ist wesentlich von einer 
Privatcorrespondenz verschieden, wie die aristotelische und epikureische 
war. Die letztere hat ausser dem Schulkreise wenig zu bedeuten gehabt; 
somit scheint mir die aristotelische das epochemachende Ereigniss. Da- 
nach ist dann der platonische Briefwechsel und die tibrigen sokratischen 
gefalscht und diese Fabrication immer weiter gegangen.’’ These Aristo- 
telian letters, be it understood, are zo¢ those published in Hercher’s Epis- 
tolographi. The scant fragments of other letters preserved are not suffi- 
cient to base a judgment upon as to their genuineness. Wilamowitz 
appears now to accept some of the Letters. Thus he writes of Zp, VI: 
‘*Den platonischen Brief kénnte ich sehr wol fiir oe halten’’ (Aristot, 
und Athen, I, p. 334). Elsewhere in the same work he declines to decide 
the question. 

* Ep. V, 322 A, in Cic. ad Fam., I 9,18; £9. VII, 331 CD, in Cic. ad 
Fam., 19,18; Zp. VII, 326 B,in Cic. de Fin., II 28, 92, Tusc. V 35, 100; 
Ep. 1X, 358 A, in Cic. de Fin., II 14, 45, de Off. 1 7, 22. The citations in later 
authors are given in detail by Westermann, De Epistolarum Scriptoribus 
Graecis; to his list add Zp. VII, 325 C, quoted by Julian, 243 A. (Hert- 
lein, Juliani Imperatoris quae supersunt, etc., ad loc. fails to recognize this 
quotation beginning in Julian yaderorepov and in Ps.-Plato toootrw yaie- 
ma@Tepov, and so is misled into conjecturing in his note: ‘malim yaieréra- 
tov,’ a reading which is at once to be dismissed when it is seen that yade- 
ma@Tepov stands within the quotation.) 

*This criticism dates back to Dionys. Hal. de Demosth. c. 23, and, 
singularly enough, applies equally to the (in my opinion) likewise spurious 
Epp. land II of Demosthenes, Cf. Susemihl II, p. 591, n. 47. 


29 


conveying as information intelligence of what, if true, must have 
been quite well known to those ostensibly addressed.’ This 
peculiarity may be explained as due to the purpose’ of rendering 
to the world an apology’ for the philosopher’s dealings with the 
court of Syracuse; which object, real or feigned, is attained in 
VII only at the cost of great length.2 The Le/ters (2) also 
represent Plato as boastful and prone to rather undignified self- 
assertion,’’ and as ambitious and solicitous for the applause of the 
multitude and posterity." But he becomes even (3) in tone quite 
oracular and mystical, displaying great anxiety lest his secret lore 
be divulged by publication to the uninitiated,” and correspond- 


6See IV, 321 A; VII, 330C, 334 Bf., 337 E; VIII, 352 Bf., 353 E f. 

™The purpose may have been real if the author (or authors) was a 
philosopher and a member of the Academy, or merely feigned if he (they) 
was a skillful rhetorician, as seems more probable. 

8See VII, 327 C, 328 C, 330 BC, 337 C, 339 A, 347 B, 353 A. Besides both 
III and VII (cf. III, 316B and VII, passim) present features which indi- 
cate that Plato’s Apology served the author (or authors) as a model. 

9 The author indeed feigns a desire to be brief, but this is mere rhetoric, 
and cheap at that. See 327 E: ¢ Kai waxpérepa eimeiv, and 329 B: ov ydp dei 
unkoverv, This is a trick well known to rhetoricians, cf. £f. XI: paxpac 
étépag déorr’ av éniotodAge, ei Tig mavra dtegior, and XIII, 363 C: e dé up wavy 
pakpag EriotoAqe qv, éypawa av & éheye, viv J& Aextivov rvvOdvov. See also dada 
Tept ev TObTwY OUK Ev ExLOTOAH mpd¢c o& uyKuyTéov in Ep. Socraticorum XXX 
(Hercher), which is attributed by Mullach (III, p. 83) and others to Speu- 
sippus, but is clearly a forgery—probably from the same “ Fabrik” with 
the older Ps.-Platonic, as its rhetorical character, literary criticism, etc., 
sufficiently prove. See also Bernays’ Phokion, p.116f. Our author 
finally reverts to his theme (VII, 334 C) with the words quite @ propos: 
TAUTa eipyTat TavTa THE OvuBovAge Eveka, K, T. A. 

10See II, 310 C: péyac éyO eit; 310 DE: uot dé o kai ool KTA.; 312 BC; 
314A; III, 316 D; 317 B: aicxbvouar 07 Aéyerv xtA.; VII, 327 CD; 328 DE; 
341 B-342 A; 344D; 345C. Against this charge Plato effectually secured 
himself in his dialogues by concealing entirely his personality behind the 
masks of various characters, chiefly that of an idealized Socrates, 

See II, 310 E-311 E; 312 A-C; IV, 320 A ff.; VII, 328 E; 345 B 
347 A. Cf, the spurious letter of Speusippus to Xenocrates (ap. Mullach, 
III, p. 89): IAdrwv, xabarep kai od olaba, wai év ov Th Tuyobon Tey tiv év 
"Axadnuia OvatpiByv jyev, vouiCwv eivat te Kai wpdg ddEav dpOqv, Kal mpd Tov avTod 
Biov (!) kai tiv totepov rap’ avOpdrote pvelav Ecouévyr. 

Tn this connection writing is disparaged as likely to result in publica- 
tion, See II, 312 D: dpaoréov 04 cor dv? aiviypdv, ww’ av tH OéATOg . . . TéOn, 
6 avayvovg Mi) yr@ KTA. to 313 E3 314 A: ebAaBov pévtor uh rote éExréon TavTa 
ei¢ avOpdarove aradebtove . . . B: mpd¢ Tavt’ obv oxomdv evAaBod . . , peyiorn 


30 


ingly hierophantic in his gratuitous expressions of piety, which 
thereby become degraded to mere cant.” 

After thus enumerating some characteristics common to the 
more excellent letters, we may turn to examine them one by one. 
And, first, we may distinguish three groups according to degree 
of excellence and probable date of origin. The first begins with 
VII and includes VIII and III; the second consists of II, IV, V, 
VI, IX, and X; the third comprises I, XI, XII, and XIII. 

Ep. VII is not only the most extensive but also the most 
important, and upon it depend directly or indirectly all those 
which have political bearings. Its value as a document for 
Plato’s life would be unique if it were genuine, and even as it is 


dé ovdaKky 7d uA ypddewv GAA’ éxuavdverv* ob yap éott TA ypadévTa pH OvK ExTrECETV. 
dua radta vidiv nbror’ éy@ rept TobTev yéypada, ovd? éote obyypaypa ovdev odd? 
gota, TA dé viv Aeydueva XwKpdtove éoti Kadov kai véov yeyovdroc. é&ppwoo kat 
meiGov, kal THY érloTOAHY TabTyY viv TpaTOV TOAAAKIC avayvods KaTaKavoov! Or is 
this only a facetious attempt of a littérateur to make game of some of his 
fellows who had written the other letters? It is absurd enough to lead one 
so to interpret it. But there are similar mystic passages, e.g. VI, 323 D; 
VII, 341 C-E; 342 A; 344 C-E; VIII, 359 Df.; XIII, 363 B (a cipher). 
Note, on the other hand, Plato’s ridicule of the azéppyta of the Sophists 
(Theaet, 152 E, 155 E). One might fancy the author of the Ps.-Aristotelian 
Ep. VI was ridiculing these letters; for, when Alexander objects to the 
publication of the axpoarud, Aristotle is made to reply: “Fear not’’— 
Evvetol ydp eior udvoig Toi¢ Audv axotboao.v—unless this be a fling at the sketchy 
character of those writings. There is an instructive parallel to the pass- 
ages in our letters in Pseudo-Heraclitus’ Ep. VIII which shows how com- 
mon such things were in later writings. Heraclitus says to Hermodorus: 
ravtwc évtvyetv oor BobAopwat Kal mepi Te GAAwY wavy ovyvav Kai rept avTaY TOV 
véuwv <of Hermodorus> fpayéa eiveiv. éypadgov 0’ dv ara, ei uy TEept TavTo¢ 
érolovunv. ardppyta peivar ovdéev dé obTW olwraTat O¢ évi Aad@v Big . . . . TOAAOL 
ov dtagépovor Kepapuiwv cabpdv, dc pndéiv oréyew dbvacba aAd’ bb yAwooahyiag 
dcappetv. "AOnvaioe bvteg avtéybovec éyvwcav baw avOporar, bre yevduevor &K 
yne éo0 bre dteppwydta Eyovor votv. Tobrove éraidevoay dvAakiv aropphtwav dia 
pvoTnpior. 

Note: ody 06 eireiv (II, 311 D3 IV, 320 Bf. bis); dv Oedc e0éAy (VI, 
323 C); Ocia rwi rhyn (VII, 327 E, 336 E); Geta potpa (II, 313 B; VII, 326 B); 
GeopiAeorépay (11, 313 E); ovAdrauBavérvtwv Gedv (VII, 327 C); wera Oedv (VIII, 
355 E); xdpw olwvod (VII, 336 C, prob. from AMenex. 249 B); dpvidov (VII, 
336 C). Of this feature Karsten (p. 27) has well said: ‘** Non aliena qui- 
dem talia sunt a Platone; contra omnes eius dialogi, maxime autem libri 
de Legibus piam deorum reverentiam prae se ferunt; sed ut ibi talia dicta 
‘sponte e re nata et loquentis ex animo profluunt, ita hic quaesita et consulto 
inculcata sunt.” 


31 


we may hardly doubt the general historical basis on which it 
proceeds ; for, though it is certainly spurious, the rhetorician who 
wrote it was no mean scholar and must be presumed to have 
known the outlines of Plato’s biography as he undoubtedly did 
the import and tenor of his works. The letter is later than 
Aristotle’ and seems to presuppose the publication of letters 
forged under the name of Dionysius II of Syracuse” and Archy- 
tas of Taras; but there is no reason for dating it after Arcesi- 
laus.” It betrays its rhetorical parentage’ by the reminiscences 
of Platonic passages” and the imitation of external tricks of 


14 Note the Aristotelian term. techn. 70 roidv tt, VII, 342 E. 

VII, 339 B: mpdc yap 0) ravta tavTa Hv Tapeckevacpéry THY apxIV Exovoa 1} 
émloToAn, THOE TH Opalovoa. Avoviorog TlAdtrww, Cf. Susemihl, ch. XX XVII, n. 
78. There is mention of such letters also in III, 317 B; but it is of course 
possible that this whole correspondence is purely imaginary. 

16 339 D: émiotoAal dé GAAa édoirwr rapa Te Apyxitov Kai THv év Tdépartt. 

7A date fixed by Steinhart because A. wrote nothing and our letter dis- 
' parages writing. The latter fact is plainly due to a false effort at consis- 
tency with the Phaedrus, and, strictly on S.’s hypothesis, our Let/ers should 
never have been written. 

18 The following characteristics appear in all the earlier forged letters, 
especially ¢. g. Ps.-Demosthenes Epp. I and II, and also in forged 
speeches. 

Tn the nature of the case these vary in degree of evidence and can 
not be adequately classified. I therefore give the more noteworthy in the 
order of their occurrence. Z/. VII, 324 A: ovk eixalwy aad’ eiddc, cf. Men. 
89 B and the spurious Ale, J, 105 C3; 324 E: Zwxpdty .. . ovn dy 
aioxvvoiunv eim@v dixaératov eivar Tov Tére, cf. Phaedo, 118, and for story of 
Leon (ibid.)-see Aol. 32 C3 325 E: tedevraévra iduyyiay, cf. Theaet., esp. 
175 D ff.; 326 AB: kaxOv obv ov Afiew ta avOpdriva yévyn, Tpiv dv H Td TOV 
plAocopotvTwy . . . yévoc ei¢ apyac éAOn . « . TO TOY OvvaoTEvévTur didAocodhon 
(see also 328 A, 335 D), cf. Rep. 473 C ff. and Zeller, II A‘, p. 405, n. 13 326C: 
ovx obTw Oavuaoth dvoer Kpalhoetat may have been suggested by the homun- 
culus; Rep. 588 ff.; 326 E: rut tév Kpecttévwr (see also thy Tic dvOpérwv 
Kpeittav, 337 D), ci. Huthyd. 291 A (this was a perfect épuaiov for later 
rhetoricians; see ¢. g. Ps.-Aristotle Ep. V, é« tov xara TAdtwva kpertrévor); 
328 C: éva pdvov ixavéc, cf. Rep. 502 B: el¢ ixavog yevduevoc; 330 C, cf. Rep. 
425 E ff. and Po/. 298 A ff.; 331 AB: Orav ric woe EvuBovdAcbyrac repi 
TLvOg TOY meyiotwv Tepl TOV abToU Biov, oLov wEpl YonudTwY KTHOEW 
} TEpt oOuatog 7 Wuyi Ewtmedeiacg seems to reflect the spurious A/c. /, 
118 A to end—a very significant fact (see note 27 to Alc. 7); 331 C: vdow 
mapagpoobync éxouévouc, cf. Legg. 881 B: pavia¢g éyduevoc, with véow possibly 
suggested by A/c. Z/, 139 D ff., a still more significant fact, if true; 331 B: 
ovK adootwodpuevog udvor, cf. Legg. 752 D3; 331 D: Aéyer wiv , . , El uédror 
pare wataiwg épeiv phre arolaveiobar Aéywv (see Ep. V, éxei ravtwy av dicta 


32 


style,” while we find quite naturally a fondness for antithesis and 
other rhetorical devices” together with words and phrases not 
found in the writings of Plato, some being apparently post-classic 
and revealing a special fondness for poetic precedent.” 


[sc, [Adrwv] xabarep rarpi ovveBobAever avT@, ei uy patnv peév Kevdvveboerv wero) 
apparently reflects Rep. 496 D ff.; 332 A, for Darius see Legg. 694 ff.; 
332 B, for the Athenians see Legg. 701 AB; 335 B: xabarep Onpiov kri., cf. 
Rep. 586 A; 337 Af.: avayxdowow avtoig ypyobar roig vduorg dittaig ovoarg 
avaykatc, aidoi kal o68o, cf. Legg. 647 AB, 698 BC, 699 D, 715 A-D; 341 C: 
éx TOAARC ovvovoiag . . . Kal Tov ovlav éEaidvyc olov and Tupdc THdHoavTOC EEadbEev 
oa¢ év TH Woy yevduevov [cf. Arist. Rhet. 1411b 12 f.: Tov vow 6 Bede gG¢ 
avippev év tH Woy] aird éavtd dn Tpéger (Compare 344 B: poyec O& TpsBdpueva 
mpo¢ GAAnAa kT/.) is apparently taken from ep. 434 E f.: wadu émavidvtec eri 
Thy T6Auwv Bacaviodpev, Kai Tay’ Gv rap’ GAAnAa cKoTOvVTEC Kai TpiBovTEs GoTEp EK 
Tupeiov ékAdppat rotjoawev THY Sixacocvbvyv; 342 A ff. is a rather confused 
exposition of Dialectic based chiefly on Legg. 895 D ff.; 343 A: Ta yeypap- 
péva timo, cf. Phaedr. 275 A; ibid.: KbKAoc éxaotog Tay év Taig mpageor ypago- 
pévov, cf, Phaedr. 271 DE, Soph. 234 E; 344 C depends obviously on 
Phaedr, 277 D; 344 D: txouvnudtoy yap, cf. Phaedr, 249 C3 345 A: izto 
Zebe, dyoiv 6 OnBaioc, cf. Phaedo 62 A: xai 6 KéByc . .. ittw Lebc, én (see 
Phaedr. 260 E: tov 0é Aéyery, onolv 6 Adkwr); 349 A: wavtodarad ypauata HKev, 
prob. suggested by Lysis, 222 B; 350 E: 60a ye 67 TavOponwa, cf. Crito, 
46 E: 60a ye ravOpdreca. 

20 Note use of ovuByvar yevduevov in 327 B, 328 A, 330 B, and also in ZZ. 
VIII, 353 B (bis) and D; the redundancy of deiv in 323, 328 C, and of oieobar 
in 324 B, and the occurrence of yiyveoac giAci in 337 B. In the same spirit 
Ep. Ill uses © Oavudore, 318 B, and 6 tay, 319 E. Note also the introduc- 
tion of conversations, as in 327 E, 329 D, 345 C ff., 348 C ff., 350 C ff., and of 
a speech, 328 D. 

21 Observe Jitotes, 324 B: véw Kai py véw, 328 D: ob opixpoic, 325 Az ov 
opixpd, 333 B: ovK dAtya; periphrasis, 324 B: Ta Kowa THe TéAEwe, 325 B: Ta 
Kowa Kal Ta ToAcTiKd, 327 B: Tov Bavdtov tov repi Arovto.oy yevouévov, 328 B: 
tiv éunv ddgav ... elye b6Boc, 329 B: THe dtAoaddov poipac, 334 C: 6 y’ éudc 
Adyoc, 334 D: woydr 70n; parallels, 328 D: émditév Kai imréwv . . « Adyov 
kat teovc, 333 AB: é&éBatov ... KatéBadrov, 333 B: ob dAiya.. . & 
ddiyw xpdvm, 347 C: tar’ épphOy, Tavta mpocowuohoygoapuev. In 327 D we have 
the familiar xaAAicrov cai dpiocrov. It is certainly quite unplatonic to intro- 
duce without some mitigating phrase such expressions as ypvodv in 324 D 
(this caught the eye of Plut. vit. Timol. c. XI), or épym . . . évoviérgoev in 
333 B, and Geioc, 340 C. 

227 may mention: 7dukiav, qv... . yéyover, 324 Aj; aioyvvoiuny in a curious 
sense, 324 E (cf. II, 310 D, III, 317 B); éxavgyayoy, ‘ retired,’ 325 A; é&etp- 
ydoato for éroinoev, 327 D; arogevseicba, poet. fut. 329 A; Katauarbaxilo, 
329 B; «ic lyvoc iévar, 330 E; éxBeBAnuévag = ‘devastated, 332 B; Tov 
Awveiwr didwv, 334 C, as if Dion had founded a school—a use of proper 
adjectives which, if I mistake not, became common only in Alexandrian 
Greek ; tapaxovopdtwr, 338 D, 340 B, cf. mapaxodc, 341 B; éupeotoc, 338 D; 


33 


It would seem that the author wished this letter to be viewed 
as an application of the principles of the Laws to Sicilian affairs 
since those of the Repudlic had been rejected ;* but the deeper 
philosophic problems of the Laws are not clearly apprehended.” 
Considering all this and certain probable historical errors,” we 
seem justified in dating this letter not earlier, nor much later, than 
290 B. C. 

Now that we have done with 4%. VII, the most pretentious of 
all, we may deal more briefly with the remainder of our collec- 
tion. pf. VIII, like its predecessor, to which it directly refers 
back,” is addressed to the adherents of Dion. The theme in 
both letters is the same, but its treatment in VIII is such as to 
prove that it everywhere presupposes VII, and this is in itself 
conclusive as respects VIII,” in which also the same charac- 


modnyeiv, 340 C3 Bareiv év airia, 341 A; émcyelpnow . . . Aeyouévnr, 341 E, 
containing apparently a conscious use of an Aristotelian term ; 67: rdyoe, 
345 E; veavixdc in peculiar sense, 347 E, cf. III, 318 B; the awkward turn, 
TlAdrwv yap, é¢7, 348 C, unless, indeed, we are to read IAdrw, yap én, as 
in the late Platonist quoted in Stobaeus (I, p. 33, 1. 6 Wachsm. “ oiroc,”’ 
yap &dm, KtA; petarourh, 348 D3; avedAéyOn, 349 A. I cannot satisfy myself 
that dsaPoAdy mpdc tiv tvpavvida Aiwvog xépt, 329 B, is correct Greek; and 
there are three passages which are insipid or even absurd: (1) ovd’ dy 6 
Avykev¢ ideiv rovjoete Tove tovobrouc, 344 A; (2) dyavaxreiv re é&qv <possibly 
éxpijv?> eite Bovdoiugny site uh. . . &ddxer Of yadreraivery pév ov deiv éue Atovuciw 
HaAdov # éuavtg, 345 D; and (3) 348 C D. It is impossible to discuss here 
each of these cases. 

** This seems to be the sense of 337 DE: raira yap éore ddeAga Ov Te Aiwy 
av 7’ éy@ érexerpqoauev Svpaxoboarc eb dpovotvrec ovuTtpaEa, debrepa whvs wpdra 
0 qv & TO TpGtov érexerphOn wer’ abtov Acovvciov rpaxOqvat waot Kowa aycba, rhyn 
dé Tig GvOpdrwy Kpeittwv dieddpyoce* Ta J (Td d2?) Viv dweic TeLpaobe eiTvyéoTEpor 
aura ayaby mpasac uoipa Kai Oeia tivi Thy. 

4 Particularly in the obscure exposition of Dialectic in 342 A ff., the 
main features of which are derived from Legg. 895 D ff. Both Miller and 
Karsten failed rightly to interpret it. Wiegand’s rendering is essentially 
correct, 

*°T refer to the account of the Thirty in 324 C, of Dion’s nephews in 
328 A, and Darius’ keeping the Persian Empire intact till Plato’s old age, 
332 AB. Reinhold’s attempt to justify these accounts is not very success- 
ful; but I cannot enter upon this discussion, as, with the fall of the letter’s 
claim to Platonic authorship, the questions cease to interest me. And that 
claim seems to me to be exploded. 

6 VIII, 356 C: Gorep xat rpdrepov épphOn, referring to VII, 337 B. 

7 Susemihl says (ch. XXXVII, n. 25): “ Mit Recht bemerkt Sauppe: 
‘Gerade das Vorhandensein des 7. und 8. Briefes neben einander weist auf 
ein Schulthema hin, von dem wir jetzt zwei Ausfiihrungen vor uns haben.’ ”’ 


34 


teristics recur,” though with less to criticise in point of diction.” 
One discrepancy from the Zaws* is due doubtless to careless 
reading, and in 355 A: Oed¢ 08 avOpdézos cdbgpost vdépoc, agpoot Oe 
400vy there seems to be a quasi-Stoic xenium to the Epicureans. 
This letter in general tone and in a few details” has much in 
common with III, and I am inclined to attribute both to some 
rhetorician ca. 270 B. C. who was a close student of Plato’s style. 

£p. lil begins by accounting for Plato’s use of «3 zpdrrew 
instead of yafpetv in addressing his friends,” a theme taken up 
again in XIII. The general character® of III, which is addressed . 


But, in view of the reference—specific and general—of VIII to VII without 
any from VII to VIII, this existence of duplicates would prove only that 
VIII is spurious. 

VIII, 352 E: evy# mpooéone, a common turn in Plato, cf. Rep. 450 D, 
450 C, 540 D, etc.; 354 C: gebye dvyy, cf. Symp. 195 B, Hipp. Maj. 292 A 
(Zpin. 974 B); 354 C: vouoc érerdy xbpiog éyéveto Bacrdede Tdv avOpOrwr, GAA’ 
ovk avOpwro Tipavva: véuwv, probably from Protag. 337 D: 6 dé véuoc, Topavvog 
dv tov avOpdrwr (cf. also Symp. 196 C); 354 D: wh more andAnotia tdevbepiac 
akaipov.tivdc ei¢ TO TOY Tpoyévev véonua éuTéowow, cf. Rep, 562 C-564 A; 
355 B: évtwv tpldv, Wuyqe Kal o@patoc, éte O& Yonudtwr KTA, points clearly to 
Legg. 697 B ff.; for the voyodiAaxec, 356 D, cf. Legg. 704 D ff.; 357 B: éore 
dé tavta ove adbvata xrd., cf. Rep. 499 D; 354 A, a periphrasis: 6 y’ ede 
Adyoc av ein EbuBovdoc ; 355 A, a speech introduced ; note fevixai épiviec, 359 A. 
Here too we meet an historical blunder. Dion’s son, who acc. to Plut. 
Consol. ad Apollon, 119 AB, died before his father, is recommended (355 E) 
by Dion’s ghost to succeed him with two other triumvirs. 

Note éxBapBapolcicar, 353 A; deilwov, 356 A; émiyaproc, 356 B; avéor- 
oupyo¢, 352 C. 

3° Lycturgus is here said (VIII, 354 B) to have instituted the board of 
Ephors, an innovation attributed to another by Plato, Legg. 690 Df. 

31Compare ¢. g. III, 316 D: eire dvOpwroc cite Oedc cite tbxy tic with VIII, 
353 B: elre Oeiav tec Hyeiobar BobAerat thynv Kal Oedv site Thy TOV dpyovT@V GpeTHV 
eitre kat TO Evvauddrepov (one feels instinctively this is too Platonic !). Com- 
pare also VIII, 354 A and 356 B with III, 319 CD. 

®It is difficult to say whether this is based upon a genuine tradition or is 
a mere inference from Charmides, 164D. At any rate it were absurd for 
Plato to expatiate upon it in such wise, and, if possible, even more absurd 
for him to recur to it as in XIII, 

33The beautiful expression, 315 C: téppw yap ydovic idpvtar Kai Abe TO 
Oeiov may be an echo from PAi/. 33 B or Rep. 377 E ff. (cf. also Zpin. 985 A); 
for mpooiuia, 316 A, cf. Legg. 722 ff.; 316 B, cf. Apol. 18A f. (and supra, n. 8); 
317 D: dcavonbeic, dc obdéva dei TOv éudv dlidwv éé aitidobat, Og did THY Eujr | 
pabvuiav ta opétepa wavra ékdv pH arodéobar didAeto, doubtless a reminiscence 
of Crito,45 Ef.; 318 B: rdvKodogdva . . . éréOnnac, cf. Legy. 673 D, Zuthyd. 
301 E; 319 B: tinxap avé’ dveiparoc, cf. Polit, 278 E; for Stesichorus’ palin- 
ode, 319 E, see Phaedr. 243 AB. At best the mention of it here is insipid ; 
or is the author threatening Dionysius with blindness? 





35 


to Dionysius II, is much the same as that of VII and VIII, though 
the diction is perhaps purer than that of either of them.” 

_ We have now to consider the second group, viz. II, IV, V, VI, 
IX, X, which may be dated somewhere between 250 and 200 
B.C.* £p. IV, to Dion, itself an insignificant production, 
appears to presuppose III and VII,” and is very similar to them 
in character.” f. V,on the other hand, is more interesting, 


% But note davrapkeiv, 317 C; iva obtuse eit, 318 D3; tiv eur Kai onv AvKogi- 
Aiav, 318 E; ei¢ Adyov 6 Adyog Hee pot, 318 E; weunrvipévoc, 319 B; arddoruc, 
ibid., unless we are to read amAgotuc; a¢ 7 Eun ddéa pavrederal, 317 E, cf. 
Gorg. 486 E: 7 éun Woy dogder, 

35 Vid. infra, note 47. 

3% The mysterious phrase rov¢ olofa djrov, 320 C, probably harks back to 
ov¢ olcba ot, III, 318 A. Again, 321 B: py ody AavOavétw oe, drt did Tov apéoKelr, 
Toic avOparoie Kai TO TpaTTewv Eoriv, 7 0’ avOddera Epnuia Evvocxoc—the last words 
are possibly a tag from a tragic poet—repeats the admonition of VII, 325 D, 
331 D-332 C. I consider this thought, however, to be a tell-tale mark of 
presumptive spuriousness; for it is an inexhaustible theme of the episto- 
lographi. See Zp. I, 309 B: ov 67 <sc. Atoviotog> towivto¢g Sv Tipavvoc 
oikhoerc wdvoc; Ps.-Aristotle Ep. IV, 7 yap trav evvoobvtav duc Gorep év TweAdyer 
xemavouévy . . . »H3 ibid. Ep. I, det yap trove voty éyovtac trav dvvactevdvtwr 
HH dia Tag apyac aAAG dia TOV apyov Oavudlecba; ibid. Ep. II, dvd recpi rHv 
apxny uy ic UBpwv GAN’ sic evepyeciav kataridecGar; and [Periander apud] Diog. 
L. I, 97: elmé te tode uéAAovtac dodadac Tupavvgoey TH ebvoia dopvpopeiofar Kai 
pn toic brAowe, The Ps.-Aristotelian letters (except the VI) are only rhet- 
orical variations on this theme. How should we entertain a better opinion 
of these which claim to be works of Plato? 

3'The passage 320 B (note avdpeia, adjbeia, dixacoobvy, peyadorpercia) was 
probably composed with Rep. 400-402 in mind. In 320 C: fvudaiy tic dv 
Tobe avTitrovovpévove TA ToLadTa Timay eiKdtwo TOV GAAwv diadéperv. viv obv dHAoV pév 
éoTw 6 Aéyo, avayipvhoxetv dé buwe dei Huade adtobc, bre mpoohker TAEov h Taidwv TOV 
dhwv avOporwv diadépecv Tove olofa dhrov [for tAéov }) raidwy cf. Phaedr. 279 A, 
Prot. 342 E, Theaet. 177 B] we have still another favorite theme of the 
rhetoricians; cf. e.g. Ps.-Aristotle to Alexander, Ep. II: kai bo0v taic 
; apoppaic the Thyn¢ Stapépetc, TOoOVTOY Kat Taic apeTaic THY KAaAdv TpwrTebery oe dei. 
The same holds good of 320 D: Gore rove && amdone tHe oiKkovpévyc, ei Kai 
veavikorepov éotiv eimeiv, etc Eva térov aroBréretv, kal év TobTw uddLota Tpd¢ oF ; 
cf. Pseudo-[Speusippus ?] to Philip (apud Mullach III, p. 89): véuile dé 
maytag mpooéyew oo. Tov vovvy, and Ps,-Aristotle, Ep. II, ai yap Kadai rév 
didacKkdAwy rapavécerc Kal rpotpéperc Geary éxovor Tov aidva, Compare also the 
superlative language at the beginning of Ep. IV, ibid.—The mention of 
Cyrus, 320 D, probably points to Xenophon’s Cyropaedia. I note also 
these expressions: 1d pév obv eic TO mapdv, 320 B; pArte Of, without preceding 
negative, 321 A; dAfOea = ‘ truthfulness,’ 320 B, a usage foreign to Plato. 


36 


and though apparently later than 7heages,* was already current 
before Cicero.” The mere fact of its being addressed to Perdiccas 
suffices to mark it as spurious.” In 4, IX we possess another 
political pamphlet, addressed to Archytas, in which mention is 
made of letters by the latter, probably at the time when it was 
written, already in circulation." In the main it is a reminiscence 


38In spite of the once proverbial character of iepay ovpBovAny Aeyouévmy, 
321 C, I incline to think our author had 7heag. 122 B in mind when he 
wrote the words, 

39 See note 4 above. This letter also seems to reflect VII. Compare V, 
322 B: érei rdvtwv av Gdiota Kabarep rarpl ovveBobAevev avT@, et pu pmaTnv pév 
kivdvveboev weto, TAéov 6’ ovdév Torgoew, with VII, 331 D: Aéyew pév... él 
péAror pate pataiwc épetv phte arobaveicba Aéywv, both passages of course 
reflecting Xep. 496 B ff. and Apol. 31 C ff. The curious conceit of the 
‘discernible voices of the several polities, 321 D f., is merely a readapta- 
tion—not singularly apt, to be sure—of ep. VIII, esp. 544 D ff., with 
substitution of ¢wr7 for tpéz0c; but it is not improbable that the inspiration 
to write the passage was derived from Arist. Rhet. 13608 1g ff.: év yap Toic¢ 
vomow éotiv } owrypia THE TéAEWC, Gor’ avayKaiov eidévat Téoa Té ETL TOALTELOY eidN, 
kal roia ovudéper Exdory, Kai bd Tivwv pbeipecbar wépvKev Kai oiKeiwy THC TOMTEtaC 
kai évavtiov, K, T. A. to appdrrovor. 

49T believe that, in the gradual change of sentiment in Greece towards 
the Macedonian dynasty, Plato’s intense Hellenism became obscured in 
his school; and, when the Peripatetics boasted of Aristotle’s services to 
Philip and Alexander, Academics were keen to invent a previous friend- 
ship between Plato and Perdiccas or even Archelaus, forgetting the 
judgment passed on the latter in Gorg. 474 D, which applied equally to 
Perdiccas III. On Plato and Archelaus see Bernays’ Phokion, p. 35 ff., 
from whose view, however, I dissent; cf. Zeller, Il A, 425,n. 2. When once 
the story had been fabricated, it passed into the hands of the rhetoricians, 
and we may still discern in the forged letters an echo of the rivalry between 
the two schools out of whichit sprung. So in Epist. Socrat, XXX (attrib- 
uted frequently to Speusippus) this tale is told to refute Plato’s inveterate 
detractor Theopompus (cf. Athenaeus, 508 C, and Zeller, I] A, p. 427, n.- 3), 
who may well have caught up the quarrel and disparaged Plato’s political 
inefficiency as compared with Aristotle in relation to Alexander, and 
Isocrates in relation to Philip. Be that as it may, we have here and in the 
(probably) likewise spurious letter of Speusippus, mentioned by Athenaeus 
XI, 506 E,—if he is not referring to the foregoing,—as well as in the 
Ps.-Platonic Ep. V and Epist. Socrat. XXXI, the outcome of that rivalry. 
See for a somewhat different view, Susemihl, ch. XX XVII, p. 586 ff. 

41 Two such are preserved in Diog. L., one to Dionysius regarding Plato, 
III 21 f., another a reply to Ps.-Plat. Ep. XII,in D. L. VIII 79f. Zp. VII 
also mentions such, 339 D, but whether they were poateyy imaginary or 
really existed is difficult to decide. 


37 


of the Repudlic,” but a few forms® and the anachronism concern- 
ing Echecrates“ show its comparatively late origin. 4p. X is a 
brief note modelled after 7heaez. 176 C ff. Of this entire group 
II is perhaps the best, and, though more artificial and rhetorical, 
is clearly related to those of the first series.” %. VI, finally, 
like the foregoing, shows knowledge of VII and VIII,* and is 


"Republic, 347 C, 540 B. 

3 Note irodvodopeiv, 357 E, in Hippocrates, otherwise late; katajyuravew, 
358 A; ovdé mavteAdc, 357 E. But Cicero’s citations (cf. note 4) fix a 
terminus ante quem. 

“In 358 B Echecrates is called veavioxoc, which is of course impossible 
for the time when the letter, if genuine, must have been written. 

451I, 310 C: ovtoc 6 Adyoc onpaiver . . , btt OvK apyw TOY émdv émiTydelwv 
depends, apparently, on VII, 347 BC; 310 E is derived (like VII, 326 A, 
335 D, and possibly mediated by these) from ep. 473 C ff., 499 Bf. 
Dionysius is here asked (314 E) to employ Speusippus and dismiss him 
homeward, when according to Plut. vit. Dion. §§17, 22, he was in Athens; 
perhaps the enigmatic passage 312 E: deirepov dé repi ta debtepa, Kai Tpitov 
mepi Ta Tpita may hark back to Zin. 984 C, but see Wiegand ad loc.; for 
h Wwoxn onoi, 313 A, vid. Symp. 192 C, Jon. 535 C, Gorg. 486 E, Hipp. May. 
296 D (cf. yuy7 pavteverar and oldev éu7 codia ddov¢ dicewc in Ps.-Heraclitus, 
Ep. V, and pavtebera: Td éudv joc, brep éxdot daivwv, ibid. Ep. IX); for 
313 B: Kai éy® elrov, btt TovTO ei paivortd cot ovTwC EXEL, TOAAMY ay Eine Adywvr 
ue arodedvndc, see Luthyd, 282 C: eb éxoinoac anadadgac pe oxépewe roAdrqe 
Tept TovTov av’tov. Note the cheap rhetoric in 313 A, 311 A, the harsh tran- 
sitions in 314 C and D, and the expressions: jovyiay aye, twice, 310 B and 
312 C3 péyac epi, 310 C3 éxnintewv, 314 ABC, ‘to be published’; mpoopboera, 
313 D; and the gem: 6 0 éumopevoduevoc . . . THE éuTopiag TabTyc . . . éumo- 
pevoetat, 313 DE. The phrase a¢ éy@ dnt, 310 C, is characteristic; in Plato 
it occurs only in speeches, e. g. Apol. 37 C, 38 E, 39 C; Protag. 322 E; 
Gorg. 450 C. Here it fits into the stilted style; in 4/c. 7, 106 C, Socrates’ 
playful humor somewhat excuses it. Finally 1d dé ogaipiov ovk dpbdc tye 
SyAdoe. dé cor ’"Apxédnpuoc, éreav EAN}, 312 D, doubtless has reference to a 
sidereal globe, which probably did not exist in Plato’s day; cf. note 9 to 
Axiochus. 

46 The enigmatic or mystical passage (cf. also II, 312 D ff.) in VI, 323 D: 
kai Tov TOV ThvTwY Oedv HyEe“dva TOV TE bvTwV Kal TOV pEAAbvTwY Tod TE IyyEe"dvog Kai 
aitiov ratépa Kipiov érouvivTac Kk. T. A, seems to be only an elaboration of VII, 
345 C: mac av pH Oavuaotoc dv avOpwrog Tov yyeudva TobTwY Kai Kbpiov obTwE¢ 
evyepac yriuacé ror’ av; cf, also VIII, 354 C. Originally such passages as 
Tim. 28 C, 37 C, 41 AD, Phaedr. 246 E, Prot. 337 D, Symp. 196 C, Legg. 
690 B, etc., may have given rise to the thought, whatever it may be, on 
which thought, so hierophantically uttered, it seems bootless to speculate ; 
but see Wiegand’s notes to the Letters. The words tH tap eidéy oodia, 
322 D, are plainly post-Platonic, while ayvvtixjc, 322 D, as opposed to 
pvAaxtinge is an Aristotelian term; cf. Hist. animal. 488), 8, etc. Note also 


38 


only a sort of sublimation of the mystical passages contained in 
them. Once this is perceived, it is clear that it represents a stage 
on the path from Platonism to Neo-Pythagoreanism. In fixing 
its date we may be aided by observing the use of g7p’ ¢yé, 322 D, 
an idiosyncrasy of Arcesilaus much imitated by his adherents.“ 
We come now to the third group—I, XI, XII, XIII. Of these, 
I is an absurd rhetorical exercitation consisting of common- 
places and citations from the poets,“ and XI, also sharing 
these characteristics, is even worse.” Worst of all is XII, 
which presupposes the existence of the Pythagorean 5zopy7parta, 
especially of Ocellus, which appeared not earlier than 100 B.C.” 
Ep. XII, on the other hand, is a better literary product, the style 
and verisimilitude of which are maintained chiefly by the fact 


avééeeow, 323 B, the author’s coinage and sole property, and agsoniorérepa 
70n, 323 A, ‘characters,’ ‘persons.’ 

47Cf. Diog. L. IV 36: gvorkic dé muc év tH diaréyecba éExpHro TH Oh eyo 
. 6 Kal TOAA0I TOV pabyrav EChdovY Kai THY pyTopEiay Kai Tay TO oxjpa. The 
expression occurs also in Minos,319 D. This dates our letter after, say, 
250 B. C. Even gyi éyo occurs only once in Plato, viz. Gorg. 463 C. 

© The beginning is a commonplace (see Lysias, XII 93, and Isocrates, IV, 
§167) which is in substance as old at least as Tyrtaeus, frag. 8, Bergk. In 
309 B we have a very awkward sentence and then a threat couched ina 
contrast sufficiently insipid: abroxpdtup 62 rorAdKec Thy buerépav rdw diagvad- 
Eac areréuoOny atiporepov } mTwxov iudv arooTeAAbyTwY TpoohKer Kal KeAevovToV 
éxrrAevoa, Tooowrov rap’ tiv duatpinpavta ypdvor. éy@ obv Tept éuavtod Bovdeboowat 
TOV <TO?> Aoirdy Tpbrov aravipwrdrepor, od dé ToLOvTOG Ov Tipavvoe oiKhaELe mbvoc 
(cf. supra, note 36), We cannot wonder that question should have arisen 
whether Plato or Dion were to be considered as the author of the letter, as 
it is appropriate to neither. Note the use of AauBdve for déyoual, 309 C, 
and of dsére for ort, 309 E, which shows the decay of Greek diction. How 
characteristic is Td ypvoiov 76 Aautpdy, 309 B! 

429Susemihl says (ch. XXXVII, n. 22): ‘Die elendesten von diesen 
Fabrikaten sind der 11. und 12.” Here we have a gem declaring Plato’s 
obscurity, 358 E f.: ovuBovrciom pévtor Exo ool Te Kai Toi¢ oiKioTalc, 6 eimdvToc 
pév éuov, dnoiv ‘Hoiodoc, déEat dv elvac pavdov (favorite word !), yaderov dé vojoat. 
Socrates is said, 358 E, to be still alive, though ill with orpayyoupig, while 
Plato is too old to undertake a voyage: ovdé T@ odmari bid Ti iuKiay ikavoc 
éyw rAavacba! Note also vu Bdoewr in 359 B. 

5° This is shown by the spurious letter of Archytas (ap. D. L. VIII 79 f.) 
to which our XII is represented as the answer. This was a common trick 
with the forgers, to float their forgeries by means of others quoting or 
referring to them. See Diels, on Heraclitus in Archiv f, Gesch. der Phil. 
III 3, and Ein gefalschtes Pythagorasbuch, ibid. p. 451; and on our letter 
in particular, Zeller, III B, p. 96, n. 1, and Susemihl, ch. XXXII, n. 462 ff. 
and ch. XX XVII, n. 21. 


39 


that the author is dealing with such trifles as he was conversant 
with.” ; . 

We need hardly discuss in detail the five remaining letters, 
XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII. They are all very sorry produc- 
tions, and are doubtless all of a later date than 300 A. D., some 
probably as late as the Byzantine period.” 


§ VIII.—MInNos. 


The Jfinos begins quite abruptly by asking 6 vépos jyiv té Fore ; 
The first answer is: ta voptEdpeva ;+ but as Adyos is not ta Acyopeva, 
nor dxo7, 7a dxovdpeva, that definition is rejected.” A second reply 
identifies véwos with déypa zékews or ddEa xokitexy4.® It is agreed, 
however, that véuos must be xaddv and dyaddv;* and, since not all 
déypata can be pronounced good, this definition also, at least as it 
stands, is inadequate.® Yet véuoc seems to be some sort of d6&a, 
viz., a ypyoty Od&a, which is an ddyOy¢ 06€a: since, therefore, 
GAnOn> 06§a is tod dvtos eEebpects,°—vopoc Bodbdetat tod dvto¢g elvae 


51It seems probable that XIII was also, added about this time, see 
Zeller, ibid., toward end of note, for here also (360 B) we have mention 
of tay te Ilvayopeiwv nai tev diapéoewv as in Ep. XII. As in III, but 
here, 360 A, with greater emphasis, «i mpdrrevv is given as the distinguishing 
mark of Plato’s letters (what need could P/a¢o then have had to mention 
it?) and in 363 B the words Oedéc and @eoi (Plato’s monotheism!) are marked 
as signs whereby sincerely meant letters of recommendation are to be 
distinguished from those not so intended! Plato’s mother was still alive 
(361 E); and then, 363 A: ‘“* Why, you must know Cebes—remember the 
Phaedo!” Cf. mention of Echecrates IX, 358 B. Note also érodcavéyer, 
363 B. Is the entire letter a burlesque? 

52Qn these see Susemihl, ch. XXXVII,n. 21. Zp. XIV is, I believe, a 
caricature or misanthropic perversion of Ref. 586 AB. Here occurs Tuyo, 
not found in Plato, but in Zryxzas, 339 B, and Alc. 7/, 140 A, and drofev, 
nowhere found inthe canon. In XV is the form évdevouévyy, much affected 
by post-Aristotelian writers. Again, in XVI we have the Aristotelian 
term mpoaipeowv, and the very late word ovoyoddlerv occurs in both XVII and 
XVIII. 

1313 B. 7313 C. d 

3314 BC. To be sure, 06a moditiKf would ordinarily mean only “an 
opinion on some matter of state,’’ but here both phases of the déyya réAewe 
and d6fa roditikh are intended. . 

4314 D. 5314 E. 

®This definition is introduced as a Platonic commonplace, and probably 
was due to Symp. 202 A: 70 yap Tow dvTO¢ TUYYAVOY Tae dy ely apalia; 
ore dé Of ov towiTov 7 Op dé6Ea. That our author used déyya réAewe was, 


40 
2Eebpectc." Why then do laws actually differ so widely in various 
countries?> Men agree everywhere that just acts are just and 
unjust acts unjust, precisely as that which weighs more is every- 
where the heavier, that which weighs less, the lighter. There- 


fore it may be said universally that ra dvta vomt€etat, od ta pi) 


évta;” and the laws which are not good are not real laws and 


cannot be said to conflict with such as are." In every sphere, 
therefore also in matters of state, those who prescribe the laws 
(provided they really know, are éxtot7poves) will agree and not 
introduce changes ;” wherefore stability is an excellent test of 
codes.” The laws of Minos, being the oldest known to the 
Greeks, therefore call forth an encomium on their author. Finally 
the question is raised, what the voyodérnc, who according to Homer 
is a zotpny adv and so a vopuedc, ‘ distributes’ (dravéuer) to improve 
the souls of men, and it is felt to be a disgrace that no answer is 
forthcoming.” 


perhaps, owing to Legg. 644 D: déypya rédewe Kowvdy véuoc érwvéuaora ; but his 
reference of a true law to ddmOjc ddfa certainly evinces his dependence upon 
Meno 97 A ff., where statesmen are shown to possess GA7Oijc¢ défa in so far as 
they hit upon the right course, though they lack éxorfjuy. It seems strange 
that, when he comes to speak of the discrepancies in legislation, he does 
not more strongly emphasize the difference between the ordinary lawgiver 
and the ideal legislator, and points out only the need of agreement on the 
part of those who know instead of insisting upon the knowledge of the 
ayabéy of the state or of true principles (airiac Aoyioug , Meno 98 A). 

7315°A. This statement is identical in meaning with Hipp, Maj. 284 D: 
brav dpa ayabod audprwow ob éxiyetpodvrec Tode véuove TWévar, vouipov Te Kal vopov 
juaptiKkacwv, but the abstract statement of the J/inos is doubtless due 
to the identification of véuoc with GAyOj¢ déga modtixh. More hereafter of 
Hipp. Maj. 

8315 A. Here, if anywh€re, we might expect Socrates to point out 
clearly the distinction between existing laws and the true laws discoverable 
only by reason. 

316 A, The author does not even seem to be aware how sophistical 
this reasoning is. 

316.3. 

1This conclusion is not clearly expressed, but must be inferred. 

12316 B-318 A. 

13318 C: ric dé Avera Tév TaAady Baoiléwv Gyabdc vomobétne yeyovévat, 
ov Ete Kal viv Ta vépima péver Oc Oia bvta; (a¢ Oeia bvTa seems to be 
added here only because the same words were used of the tunes of 
Olympus and Marsyas just previously, and has no special significance.) 

14321 CD. We can only guess that the answer expected was duxavoobyy. 
If then the question had been urged, and the full working of d:xasooiyy had 


41 


Such in brief outline is the argument of the M/zos. The incen- 
tive and the leading thought of the dialogue seem to have been 
derived from Plato’s Aippias Major 284 B-285 B,” though the 
beginning of the Laws doubtless exercised a decided influence on 
the account of King Minos. Like almost all of the Pseudo-Pla- 
tonica the AZinos also betrays its dependence upon Alcibiades 1," 
and we seem to be justified in dating it later even than Anter- 
astae.™ 

The best evidence of its comparatively late origin is found in 
the spirit of the Alexandrian age which pervades it and manifests 
itself in various forms. First, we may note a preference for mon- 
archy as it existed, shown in the encomium on King Minos and 
in Socrates’ wholly unplatonic question by which it is introduced, 
318 A: of 08 rod ttvog vépoe Aptotoe tats duyats toy dOpdrwy; ody 
of tod Baothéws; gabt, The manner, also, in which the remarks 
about the variation of customs and laws respecting burial and 
human sacrifice are intruded is as unlike that of Plato as the 
pedantry displayed in them is foreign to his works.” In the 


been inquired into, we would have had the demand of the C/itopho repeated. 
The connection of dixacocivy with BedAtiw roeiv is developed in Axterast. 
137 BC, and it is possible that one passage refers tothat. See note 9 to 
Anterast. 

15 Mention of this relation has already been made in note 7. In AHippias 
Maj. the discussion formed only an episode, and therefore permitted our 
author the greater liberty in combining in his discussion the other thoughts 
which he had culled from various sources. Besides the general concep- 
tion and the passage cited in note 7, it may be well to call attention to 
Hipp. Maj. 284 E: 76 pév axpiBei Adyw, & DOxparec, odtwc Eyer: ov pévTor eidbaow 
avipwroe (so I read for Hermann’s drOpwro) dvoudfew obtwe. érepov, & 
‘Inmia, oi eiddrec 7) oi uy) eidérec, with which compare JZin. 317 C: 6 doxet vouoc 
elvat Toi¢ uy eiddow, bd 

16 Win. 316 D; tavta dfrov moddn avayKn éoti Tove eidétac aitodve abtoic 
Evvvouiterv (see also 317 B, etc.) applies the test of knowledge so strongly 
insisted upon, A/c, 7, 111 BC ff. (see note 14 to Alc. 7), though it also 
occurs elsewhere, and in particular in Aippias Maj. 294 CD. Min. 317 E: 
oi TOV avAnTod Kai KiMapioTov. ‘O vouiKdratoc apa év TobToOLC, OvTOC avAyTiKdTaTOC, 
must likewise, when we regard the entire context, be pronounced a reminis- 
cence of the discussion in A/c, Z, 108 (note particularly ovorndrepov, 108 E). 

Reference is here had chiefly to the fact mentioned in note 14, though 
the proof of the A/7nos’ later origin does not rest upon so slight a basis. 

Socrates says 315 B: érel dépe idwuev, édv dpa iuiv évbévde Katddndov 
yévnrat, eite Toc avroic del vouore ypoueba } GAAoTE GAAotc, Kal ek dravTEC ToI¢ abroic 
j dAdo GAAoww. This is a direct demand for such information as his com- 
panion offers, and yet S. with strange irony replies in 315 D: ovdév tou 
Gavuaorov éotiv, & BéAtioTE, ei ob pév GpO¢ Aéyetc, Eué JE TOLTO AEANOeV, 


42 


same strain is the claim that Attic tragedy originated, not with 
Thespis, but in a far earlier time. Such a remark is well suited 
to a period when Thespis was represented by spurious tragedies 
and purely mythical predecessors were being invented to rival in 
antiquity Susarion, Chionides and Magnes in comedy. Similarly 
319 A: py yde toe vtov AOousg pev elvat lepods zat Edda xa dpvea 
xart dgets, dvbpdzous O& w7%, seems to fall in quite aptly with 
the religious syncretism of the Alexandrian age.” The influence 
of the same period is apparent also in the affected interpretation 
of Homer” and the play on words in which the author indulged.” 
It is difficult to decide whether 316 A: odzody zat & Mépoats odtws 
ws év@dde vourSecat was derived from Aristotle or was half prover- 
bial,” and equally so, whether or not ¢gy7p’ éyd, 319 D, is due to 
the well-known mannerism of Arcesilaus.% But there can be no 
doubt that our author has borrowed largely, and not always judi- 
ciously, from Plato,” and we may safely affirm that he intended 
his dialogue to pass for Platonic. 


19 320 E f. 

70 Euhemerus spoke of Zeus as a king of Crete; doubtless he also men- 
tioned Minos in that connection. Did he then advert to his cruelty to show 
the folly of men in worshipping him? If so, the AZizos may have been 
written partly to exonerate him, though its author was himself infected 
with the views of Euhemerus. The fact that Minos, as a lawgiver and 
statesman, is included among the O@eiove avbparove (318 E) is undoubtedly 
due to Meno 99 CD. Only the argument as quoted above indicates the 
date of the AZznos. 

71319 B ff. The treatment of Talos is likewise characteristic. Here 
(320 C) he is a vouodtAag, with bronze tablets of the laws, making annually 
three visits to the villages to administer justice. Elsewhere he is repre- 
sented as a brazen giant who thrice a day makes the round of the coasts to 
keep off invaders. See Apglilodorus I 9, 26. 

227 shall not here dwell on the juggling with véduoc, vouilw, vouruoc, vouetc, 
etc. But évteivovrec, 321 A, is clearly a pun, confusing évreivw (sc. as ei¢ 
cheyeiov, e. g. Hipparch. 228 D), i. e. ‘ versifying,’ with évteivw = ‘ attack,’ 
‘torture.’ 

*3See Arist. Eth. Nic. 1134> 26: Gomep 70 rip Kai évOdde Kal év Tépoate xaiee. 
The situation is the same in both passages. Grant, ad loc., thinks the 
expression proverbial. 

24See Letters, note 47. 

> Much evidence of this fact is contained in the preceding notes. Here 
only the more striking examples not already mentioned can be noted: 
314 C: raya dé dde auevov eiodueba, cf. Gorg. 450 C, Euthyphro,9 E; 314 B: 
@ 02 of Geot dtavooivTa, &¢ daotv ol wdvTetc, wavTiKh, points also to Huthyphro, as 
314 D: 70 mév odler tac wéAEIC Kal TaAAA TavTa, TO 68 ardéAAvoL Kai avatpére does 


ee 





43 


We can hardly be far wrong in dating the Minos about 250 
B.C. Much earlier it cannot have been written, and if it appeared 
later it would scarcely have been catalogued by Aristophanes.” 
The effort to claim this dialogue, together with others which 
begin by a saltus in medias res without scenic introductions, for 
Pasipho of Eretria is too uncertain to elicit much interest.” 


§ [X.—HIPPARCHUS. 


The Aiipparchus displays almost all the characteristics already 
observed in the AZos, but, unlike it, not only wants the express 
attestation of Aristophanes, but was, in addition, apparently 
doubted even in antiquity.’ Its argument clearly seeks to develop 


to Euth. 14 B; 316 B: éwe ay ob Te kata cavrov Aéyye, kK. T. 4, is an exceedingly 
misplaced imitation of such passages as Prot. 334 E ff.; 316 C, the absurd 
phrase fvyypaupati <+ Ta? Boeckh> epi tyeiag tTév KauvéyvTwv and the 
following discussion may have been suggested by Po/. 295 C ff., or Gorg, 
464 f.; 317 A: of odctiKoi te Kai of Baoduxoi, cf. Pol. 259 C ff., and Huthyd, 
291 C3 317 C: mepi réAewe diaxooujoewc, cf. Symp. 209 A; 317 D: of tovrov 
vouot Kat dtavouai ext ravta opbai eiow, cf. Crat, 430 C, where such etymological 
puns come more naturally; 318 A: ovto¢ tiv avOpurivyy ayéAgv Tov odbpuaTo¢ 
véwelw Kpatioroc, is a rather absurd abuse of language: Boeckh supposes that 
the author had in mind Po/, 268 B or 274 E, but possibly the suggestion 
may have been derived partly from Lyszs 209 A: ovte Tov odpatoc, aAAd Kai 
tovTo GAAoc roimaiver; but compare Euripides, Frag. 634 (Nauck) : dori¢ véwer 
KaAdiora THY abTov pbaty, | ovTOE Codde TéGUKE TPOG TO OvUdepov ; 318 B: TOvTWY Ta 
avaAjwara Gedtatad éoTt, Kai pdva Kivei Kai Exdaivet Tov’g TOV Gedy év 
xpeta bvtac is a bungling attempt to reproduce Symp. 215 C; for Min. 
319 C: 6 Zeve cogiothe éoTl, see Symp. 203 D, Crat. 403 E, Zuthyd. 288 B; 
320 A: ovK gory oitivec aréyovta ovpurooiwy ... . aAdow  Kparec xat Aaxedac- 
péviot, merely reproduces Legg. 637 A ff.; 321 A: gore dé THC ToLhoewe SypmoTEp~ 
néotatév Te Kal WoyaywytKoratov 7 tpayydia doubtless reflects Legg. 658 D; 
321 C: Kade re Kat did Bpayéwov aroKpivduevor, cf. Gorg. 448 E. 

*D, L. T1162, It formed the third trilogy with Leges and Zpinomis. 

"7 Susemihl (I, p. 20 ff.) has said what can be said upon the subject, and 
even he finds the case hopeless. Diog. L, II 61, the passage upon which 
the whole discussion depends, is too vague, and perhaps even inextricably 
confused, to admit of profitable discussion. I do not believe that there 
existed in antiquity only one work on each of the subjects zepi aperijc, x. 
dixaiov, ™. gAokepdvic, 7. véuov, and so the conclusions, suggested by the 
attribution of works so entitled to different philosophers, can of course 
produce no certainty, On the connection of Minos and Hipparchus see 
notes 12 and 13 to the latter dialogue, and compare notes 21 and 22 above 
with note 7 to Hipparch. and the text. 

1 Aelian, V, H. VIII, 2: Aéyer dé WAdtwv taira, et d9 6 "Inmapyoc WAdtwvdc 
éoTl T@ OvTe. 


44 


the paradox latent in the ambiguity of ycdozepdys, which term 
implies a censure certainly not so prominent in its components, 
zgpdo0¢ and gtictv. Given the discussions of the Eryxias, one can 
readily perceive how a later Platonist would desire to utilize them 
in producing a dialogue in imitation of the founder of his school, 
and such, in fact, appears to be the relation of Aipparchus to 
Eryxias.’ On the other hand there is sufficient evidence of the 
usual kind to prove the desire to copy Plato.* Yet the imitator, 
as was but natural, failed signally to catch Plato’s habitual delicacy 
of manner;* and even where success was more readily attainable, 


2The subject-matter of itself compels a comparison. Many have re- 
marked upon the uncalled-for rebuke administered by Socrates, Hipp. 
225 B: ph po ovtwe eixy, Gorep te Hducnuévoc, but nobody seems to note that 
the author probably had in mind Z7yx. 395 A: Gorep ti adixobuevoc. So too 
the discussion of value as more important than guantity in determining 
wealth (231 CD) points to Zryxias, §III ff. Note also 231 E: 7d dé afiov 
av Aéyerc KeKTHoGat TO avodeAée 7) TO OPsAuOV, Where the GdéAuov, as in the 
Lryxias, is made the criterion of value, Even the words of Socrates’ 
companion, 232 B: gvdyxaxe . . . addon éué ye 7) wéreuev, are probably an 
echo of Eryxias’ words, Zryx. 395 D: éy wév, © LSdxparec, ob Tovwbrove ounv 
div Tove Adyoug eivat, ol¢ pHr’ av Teioa dbvaité Tic undéva TOY TapévTwY K. T. A., 
when protesting against Socrates’ eristic arguments. 

3 Naturally the imitation is not confined to the general structure of the 
dialogue (though even here, as in the use of @yui in 228 A—on which see 
Stallbaum and Schleiermacher ad loc.—there seems to be lacking the 
perfect mastery), but extends chiefly to familiar Platonic phrases. App. 
225 B: uh wo ovtac, cf. Prot. 318 B; with the play on dpa kai yopa and its 
justification, iva x. 7. A., 225 C, cf. Gorg. 467 B: © Adore IldAe, wa x, T. 2., 
Symp. 185 C; Uavoaviov dé ravoauévov, diddokovor yap pe, k.T. 2., Phaedo 102 D: 
rapéywv irepéxov, Rep. 498 DE (cf. Axiochus 370 DE) ; for the phrase, Hipp. 
228 B: 6¢ adda Te TOAAG Kai KaAd épya codiac aredei=aTo, see Menex. 237 B and 


239 A: woAAd 67 Kai Kaa épya aredqvarto, which Dionys. Hal. (de vi decendi _ 


in Demos. §27) criticises as defective Greek, saying: épydlera Td épya, 
aropdcews J’ agwita Ta GAyrra (cf, also Alcyon, n. 3, and Alc. J, 119 E); for 
position of gyoiv, 229 A, vid. Prot. 345 D; Hipp, 229 E: domep metrevwr, cf. 
Gorg. 461 D, Prot. 354 E; Aipp. 231 C: mepitpéyete ei¢ TO avtod, cf. Theaet. 
200 C; Hipp. 232 A: © avdpeérate ravtwv, cf, & TavTwv avdpetérare in Pol. 
263 D and Legg. 905 C, having the advantage of avoiding the hiatus and 
producing a metrical rhythm, — — — — — vuvuwy. Hipp. 228 D repeats 
the disjunction so much emphasized in 4/c, Z (see note 7 to that dial.), 
hv 7” éuabe Kai iv avrog éEqvpev, Considering the turn given to it in Adc, J, it 
seems strange to note the emphasis Leutsch lays upon éévpev in Philol. 
XXX, p. 128, in seeking to use the Aipparchus for an authority on the rise 
of gnomic poetry. 

*The repeated charges of unfairness, made with great brusqueness, in 
225 D, 228 A, 229 DE, are in themselves quite unplatonic, though intended 


ee — SS ee ee 


45 


in the conduct of the argument, he allowed himself such license 
as is inconceivable in Plato.° 

With the dependence of Aiipparchus upon Eryxias there is 
given also the certainty that it dates from the Alexandrian period. 
But the entire episode which introduces Hipparchus, and which 
evidently constituted the most interesting part of the author’s 
production even to himself, is such as could have originated only 
then.® The literary notices of Homer, Anacreon and Simonides, 
228 BC, and of Hipparchus’ epigrams, 228 C ff, breathe the 
spirit of that time, and the new interpretation of the tyrannicide, 
229 CD, is conceivable only in such an age. The use of vaéy:’ 
and the ratio of gold to silver 12:1 also point directly to the 
period of Alexander’s successors.* But we should gain an even 
more definite date if it were certain, as it is probable, that the 
Theages® was already known to our author. Be that as it may, 
it seems clear that in the distribution of teog7 into Eyed and dpya, 
230 E, we have a trace of Aristotle; and if that be so, it becomes 


as imitations of such passages as Meno 76 A, 80 B, etc., but the absurd 
way in which they serve at 228 A to introduce the Hipparchus episode > 
makes them quite ridiculous. Then, too, how inept is 227 B: épov 67 kai 
éué, ei ov Kai yO! Possibly this crept in because of an idiosyncrasy of some 
popular philosopher. Scarcely less unplatonic is the repetition of yu poi ye 
in 229 E. See also note 1. 

°The juggling with aivoc and its cognates is almost though not quite as 
bad as that with véuoc in Minos. To illustrate the argument: After saying 
oiecbat deiv Kepdaiverv, 225 D, the deiv is at once dropped in oiecbar kepdaivery, 
226 AB, only to reappear in 226 D; from the admission: ayaldv 76 Képdoc, 
227 A, he draws the inference : Tove obv 76 ayabdv giAoivtac diAoKEpdeic Kareic, 
and ravrec av diAokepdeic daivovra, 227 C, whereas only ayaOév re guAowrec 
would strictly follow. Again Socrates asserts, 227 D: 10 kepdaivey dpte 
Guoroyhoapuev elvar adedciobar, while that was only to be inferred from the 
statement in 227 A: BAdrrovrac b70 TH¢ Cyucac dpa dvOpwrot . . . Evavtiov 68 TF 
Cnula TO Képdoc. 

6 See note 4 for the manner of introducing this episode, 

7232 B. The word occurs, aside from Sophocles O, T. 684, only here and 
in Callimachus, Ep. XXIX, 5, and LV, 3, and is one of those poetical 
flosculi in which the Alexandrians delighted. 

8231 D. See Hultsch, Metrologie, §30. 

®The profusion of examples adduced, Hipp, 225 B ff., occurs with few 
variations in 7heages, 123-127; but it must be said that largely the same 
list is found in Adc, 7, 124 ff., from which that of the Zheages was derived. 

10This use is common in Aristotle (see Eth. Nic. 1118 10 f.; mepi CoSav 
yevéoewe, 7204 4, 725 1, 72648 173 mepl CWwv popiwy, 6714 3, etc.), but does not 
to my knowledge occur before, Of course the fact that Plato—like every 


46 
quite probable that the use of waAdov and jjrrov in 230 A-D is an 
application of his dictum that odcéa does not admit of more nor 
less." The same thought occurs in briefer form in the JZnos,” 
and from the general similarity of plan and composition, together 


with special resemblances,” we may safely conclude to an approx- 
imately common date if not to common authorship. 


§ X.—CLITOPHO. 


The ostensible purpose of the CZitopho is one which Plato might 
well have wished to carry out, viz., to show the inadequacy of the 
Socratic ethics; but so soon as it is made clear that the Platonic 
and not the Azstoric Socrates is here subjected to criticism, it 
should also be evident that Plato did not write this harangue. 
The anonymous reference to various disciples of Socrates is 
plainly only one of the fictions employed to relieve the monotony 
of Clitopho’s extended recital. It is, therefore, quite fruitless to 
seek to determine who each or any of his feigned collocutors 
were, the more because all the answers he reports are found in- 
writings which were regarded as Platonic. That he did not care 
to whom Plato had attributed the various views, our author has 
sufficiently shown in treating the question, whether justice con- 
sist in doing good to friend and harm to foe.’ Add to this that 


other mortal—spoke of ovria kai rota (Phaedo, 64 D, Buthyd, 280 B) means 
nothing, because even ovriov is not dry (as Aristotle says of Thales, Met. 
983> 22: AaBov iowe tiv IrdAmuv TabTyv EK Tod TavTwY dpay THv Tpodyy Lypav 
ovoav). The thought does not concern us; it is the terminology. With 
Hipp. 229 B: éyyic¢ te wv ’AOyvain, Gorep éxi Kpdvov Baoidebvovrog cf. Arist. 
Pol. Athen. 16, 27 (Sandys) : 60 kai roAAdnig éOpvdAdsiro, @¢ 7 Tlevovorparov 
Tupavvic 6 ext Kpédvov Biog ein. 

Our passage might be considered a development of Meno, 74 DE, but 
the reference to Aristotle is more natural. Cf. Arist. Categor. 3> 33 ff. 

2 Minos, 313 AB. 

3To omit the mass of materials gathered by Boeckh, I mention only 
Hipp. 232 A: pryuoveberc ov, bev juiv ovtoc 6 Adyoc yéyovev; . . . et 08 (ip, EY 
oe irouvhow; Min, 318 B: iowe ov« évvosic, add’ éy® BobdAec oe imouvgow : Com- 
pare also the end of Aipparchus (ov dpa dpbac dveidifer x. Tt. A.) with the 
emphatic caution not to blaspheme in J/zz. 318 E. On the whole it seems 
more probable that they are both due to one author. On Pasipho see 
note 27 to Minos. 
1Cht. 410 AB: eiméc (sc. Socrates) or dixasocbvyc elvar Tove pév éExOpode 
Baarrewy, Tove 62 didovce eb roveiv: botepov dé Eddvyn BAdrTELW ye ovdéroTE 6 dikatog 
ovdéva, This makes it appear that Socrates gave the definition (and this he 
never did, see, Meno, 71 A, Rep, 332 C ff.) and that Clitopho refuted him. 


47 


he used Alcibiades I, Theages and Anterastae’? as genuine 
sources of Platonic philosophy, and one must be convinced that 
the CZtopho is spurious. 

The charge here preferred against the Platonic Socrates is only 
a modification of that noticed by Xenophon’ as urged against the 
historical Socrates; viz., that, though excelling in the art of 
exhorting to a life of justice, he fails—either because unable or 
unwilling—to specify the precise initial step and conduct of such 
a life, or even the definite result to which the réyvy dexacocdvy leads. 
This demand goes obviously beyond the sphere of psychological 
ethics into that of social ethics and politics; and it is needful to 
remark that no cognizance is taken of the positive doctrines by 
which Plato, in the Politicus* and in the books of the Republic 
subsequent to the first—the only one which is here taken into the 
account—has supplemented the more or less negative teachings 
of Socrates. Some critics have therefore inferred that this phase 
of Platonism was not yet developed, or that the CZztopho was 
either a discarded introduction to the Repudlic or even, in some 
sort, a part of it... Of course, these views suppose the impossible 


The absurdity of this is at once apparent. The historic Socrates, indeed, 
may have used that definition, but hardly seriously. See Xen, Mem. II 6, 
35, and II 3, 14, and Zeller, II A, p. 171. 

2 Clit. 407 C: dua tiv év TE Todi rpdc Tiv Abpav auetpiav may refer to A/c. J, 
108 A: Tov ddovra det Kibapilery ord mpde Thy Gd Kai Baiverv, esp. since the fol- 
lowing words allude to A/c, 7,112 A ff.; Clit, 407 E: tov pév apfovroc apedeiy, 
vid. Ale, J, 130 A; Clit. 409 D-410 A, the discussion of @Aia, dudvora and 
éuodosia is arésumé of that in Alc. J, 126 A-127 D. Clit. 408 A: doTt¢ yap 
67) [uh ériotatat TH EavTov Abpa xpjoba, dpAov He ovdé TH TOD yeltovoc, OvdE boTLC MI 
Ti TOV AAAwv, ovde TH EavTOD, OV’ AAAw TOV dpydvoev ovde KTHUATWY oddevi, is a Very 
insipid and much misplaced imitation of 7eag. 126B. For the Anterastae 
see my note 13 to that dialogue. I incline to think that 4/c. 7 was particu- 
larly in the author’s mind when he spoke of protreptic discourses. At the 
close of that dialogue Alcibiades says: dpiouai ye évrevOev tHe diKatocbvyc 
éxiedeioba. Clitopho says in effect: Zake the Alc. I for granted: what 
follows then? Cf. rac apxecbar deiv gapév dSixaoobvyg répi pwabhoewc and oiac 
Gepareiac deita, Clit, 4088 E and 410 D, and 6é¢ tov KAeitodavta duohoyovrra, 
etc., ibid. 

3Xen, Mem. I, 4, 1 ff. 

* Polit. 306 ff. 

>Ritter held the first view. Hippolytus (ap. Diels, Dox. p. 569, 1. 26) 
quotes Clit, 407 D, as if from the Repudlic, saying: Kai Aéfic TobTov 
éugaveotaryn (i. e. the clearest statement of the doctrine that dwaprfyara are 
axovowa) éoTt év tH Ilodrteia. He, with others, probably regarded the 
Clitopho as in some sort a part of it; else, why did Thrasyllus (Diog. L. 


48 


in regarding our harangue as Platonic; and it is far more prob- 
able that if its author took the trouble to read those works or the 
Laws he believed those schemes to be chimerical and conse- 
quently inadequate as an answer to his demands. It is not our 
present business to enquire whether such a conclusion was or 
was not warranted; it is sufficient to know that Plato dzd offer his 
solution, and that he could not have written such a criticism of 
his own doctrines and have ignored the real issue.2 We do not 
know who produced this harangue, nor even the time of his 
writing. We may, however, affirm that he did not desire his 
work to pass for Platonic; for, though alluding to many passages 
is Plato’s dialogues,’ he made clear his own adverse position. 
And his diction, while generally pure and in harmony with 
Plato’s usage, displays sufficient deviations from the latter to 
point, as does also his use of Alcibiades 1, Theages and Anter- 
astaé, to a later age.® 


III 60) place it just before the Repudlic? [This remark of Hippolytus’: 
A&E TobTOv Eubaveotary, very pointedly illustrates the most striking charac- 
teristic of almost all of the spurious works. Because the thoughts have 
come to be commonplaces they can be expressed epigrammatically ; and such 
pointed statements exercised a strong influence on the eclectic minds of 
later philosophers.] Kunert dates the C/itopho ca. 390 B. C, and points 
out many detailed allusions to the Republic, but he tries to prove too 
much. Had he investigated the relation of C/itopho to Alc, J he must 
have seen his error, Yxem’s theory I consider even less tenable. 

6Plato might well have answered Clitopho’s impertinent question by 
saying : ‘Vo ome can tell you just what ts your duty,’ and all ethical writers 
of consequence would sustain the answer, 

TIn é&erAnrréunv axobwv (407 A) allusion is made to Symp. 215 C f.; in 
407 B: ayvocite ovdév tév dedvtwv mpatrovtec, probably to Euthyd. 306 D f. or 
Apol. 29 Df.; ibid. eitep pabyrév, vid. Meno, 70 A; the locus class. for the 
involuntariness of wrong-doing (407 D) is Prot. 345 D ff.; 7rrov dc dv 9, daré, 
tov. jdovev (ibid.) is too much a commonplace to require references; for 
kKpeittov éav THY TobTov ypyow (407 E f.) see Euthyd. 280 C ff., 288 E ff.; 408 C: 
@orep kabedovrac éreyeipev, cf. Apol. 30 E f.; the questionable expression 
érreceMeiv d& ov évt TH Tpaypyate (308 D) may have been suggested by Zuthyd. 
306 CD; for cc. V and VI cf. Euthyd, 290-293; 409 BC: 10 ovpudépor, 
arexpivato, cf. Rep. 336 D ff.; 409 D: rac dé tév raidwr gidiag Kal Tac TOY 
Onpiov, ci. Lysis 211 E ff£., 212 D3; for repidedpdpgxev eic tavtov 6 Adyoc (410 A) 
cf. Theaet, 200 C. 

8 Note xara xpdtoc (407 A), peretytév and égaoxéw (407 B), éxobovov (407 D) in 
a forced rhetorical application, ovpBairw (4c9 D), uaxporepov and Katapeserqoat 
(410 B), diére (410 C), didayuwa (409 B). The use of gatAwe in mpde o& gabdwc 
Eye (406) seems strange at best. A most evident mark of later author- 


49 


§ XI.—ANTERASTAE. 


This dialogue opens in a grammarian’s school,’ where two 
noble Athenian youths are discussing the inclination of the 
ecliptic, while their lovers, an athlete and a professor of polite 
learning, sit by and look on. The lads are said to be philoso- 
phizing, and so, in Socrates’ manner, the questions forthwith 
arise whether philosophy be a fine thing and, ultimately, what it 
is. The professor of polite learning declares it to be one with 
modvpadia. This definition, it appears in the sequel, would make 
of the philosopher a Jack of all trades and a master of none, and 
so useless in the presence of specialists; and if useless, then not 
a possessor of any good. Socrates then takes the matter in 
hand’ and shows that there are some things in which the philo- 
sopher must be a true master, second tonone. These affairs con- 
stitute the broad realm of conduct, and the arts that rule within 
it are cwgpootbyyn and d:xatocbvy, which prove to be identical not 
only with each other but also with facchexy, tupavvixy, modetexy, 
dsonotizy, olxovoutzy (138 C). Yet at the very close® Socrates 
reverts to the first theme to remark that it thus likewise appears 
that philosophy is not zodvya6ia, thereby proving that the princi- 
pal aim of the dialogue is to refute the first definition. 

We have then to enquire what may have been the motive of 
the author. And in order to an intelligent answer we shall 
need first to ascertain the approximate date of his writing. It 
scarcely admits of question that the dialogue is spurious. Aside 
from the doubts expressed in antiquity,‘ almost all modern 
critics have agreed in athetizing it. And this verdict is suffi- 


ship is the expression (408 C) Trav 7AiKwrov Te Kai ovverOvuntdr 7} Etaipwr cdr, 
7 Orwe det mpd¢ o& TEpi avTav Td ToLovToV dvoudtev, We find also a very stiff 
and rhetorical phrase in 406: rov¢ éuoi repi cov yevouévove Adyove mpd¢c Avoiay. 
Yxem considers this a fine turn of expression to mark Clitopho’s feigned 
embarrassment. 

*This circumstance points to an imitation of the opening scenes of 
Charmides and Lysis, 

2137 B-139 A. 

3139 A. 

*Clem, Alex. Strom. I 19, 93: && 67) rot TWAdrwroc rd obyypaupa, and D. L. 
IX 37: elmep oi ’Avrepactai WAdtwvde eior, dyot OpacbAdoc, The latter passage 
is corrupt and, as it stands, unintelligible, but it clearly expressed a doubt 
as to the genuineness of our dialogue. 


50 


ciently justified by its dependence not only on A/c. Z° but also 
on Alc. [L8 

But there is a marked violation of Plato’s wonted urbanity in 
the rivalry of the lovers,’ which serves to heighten the unplatonic 
effect; and the language, though generally pure, is not wholly 
above suspicion.® In addition to this it is to be noted that the 
argument consists almost wholly of Platonic commonplaces’ which 
are manipulated with foolish subtlety,” though apparently in good 
faith. It is customary to declare the result of the dialogue to be 
unplatonic, which may indeed be true if it be assumed that it 


5137 DE: #ri¢ éva, kai oAdobe kK. T. A. unquestionably reproduces A/c, J, 
114 B ff., where a suggestion of the Phaedrus (260 E f.) iselaborated. See 
note 17 to Alc. Z. It is not improbable that the following definition of 
owppoovvy as TO éavtov yeyvookewy (138 A) is likewise due to A/c. 7, 131 B, 133 
C ff., rather than to Charm. 164 D. 

6Ant. 136 CD, if not the whole dialogue, apparently owes much to Aéz, Z/, 
146 E ff.: dei dpa kai wéAv Kal yoynr tiv péAdovoay Opbd¢ Bidoacba TabTyg TIC 
émioThunc <sc. THe Tou BeATiorov> avréyeobal, ATEXVvdo GoTEp acbevovvta iaTpov 
h Two¢ KvBepvAtov Tov dodarac péAAovta THEW... 6 08 OF THY KaAoVpEvHY 
woAvpabiay Te Kal woAuTexviav KEKTHMEVOC, Opbavoc O& OY Tabryg 
The émvothunc, ayduevoc O& Hrd pac Exdotno TOV GAAwy, ap’ ovyxi TE byte diKaiw¢ 
TOAAG Yetudve yphoetal, ate dvev kvBepvAtov drateaAGov Ev TE- 
Adyet, xpdévov ov paxpdv Biov Uéwr, cf. Ant. 136 D: ti 0; év vy yemalouévy 
Totép av paadov émitpéroe éavtdv Te Kai TA CEavTod, TO KYBEpYATH 7] TO 120000@ ; 

1 Ant. 132 C, 133 AB. 

SI note abyueiv mpoc Tov Adyov, 135 A. 

®The observant reader cannot fail to recognize this. I will note here 
some of the imitations. 132 D: iva xai ei tu dvvaiuyv map’ avtov aogeanbeinn 
is a very frequent turn, vid. Hipp. Min. 369 E, Apol. 25 D, etc.; 133 A: 
6 re pev of Epactal éxabov, ov« olda, vid. Apfol. 17 A}; ibid.: det yap more brO TOV 
véwy Te kal KaA@v éxrAGTToual, vid. Charm. 155 C ff. ; with 133 Bcf. AZenxo 71 B, 
etc.; Solon’s yypdoKnw 0 asi ToAAa didacKéuevog occurs also Laches 188 B, Rep. 
536 Ds; on Aerrov imd pepymvar, 134 B, see Phaedrus 276 B, Rep. 607 C; 
Gpohoyovpmev Tpeic bvTec, 134 E, is especially frequent in the Laws; the com- 
parison of learning with food (ovncty év rv mpoodepouévor puxh éore Kal Ta 
pabhuara; 134 D) occurs in Legg. 810 E; aropiag peotoi, 134 E, is found 
frequently, vid. Fritzsche ad Meno 80 A; 136 E: avopodoyhoacba Ta eipnuéva, 
vid. Sym. 200 E (cf. also Prot, 332 D: avaioyiobusha 7a @pohoynuéva pir) 5 
on the connection of KoAdfev and PeAriorove roeiv, 137 BC, see Rep. 445 A 
and Gorg. 511 ff. (cf. also note 14 to Minos). Of course the reduction to 
unity of Baovduch, rypavrixh, etc. in 138 C, is due to Polit. 258 E, 259 B, and 
Euthyd. 291 B ff. 

0Tn 137 B ff., reaching its height in 137 DE. 


51 


would make philosophy wholly practical ;" but, as representing 
one aspect of Plato’s thought, it proceeds from a basis quite 
incontestable.” 

Though we thus find a terminus post quem in Alc. Il, we have 
not yet discovered a /erminus ante guem; but this is given in the 
reference of the C/itopho to our dialogue.” We have now to 
enquire what motive our author may have had in writing the 
Anterastae. On the whole it seems most probable that he was 
an admirer of the Socratic Platonism, if we may employ this term 
to designate the original philosophy of Plato, which evolved from 
the ethics of Socrates, in distinction from the Pythagoreanizing 
tendency of the heads of the older Academy and the empirical 
methods of Aristotle. Speusippus had said that, to define any 
one thing, you must know all,“ thus agreeing in part with the 
still more inductive Aristotle, who defined philosophy as the 
knowledge of first principles which 010¢ zw¢ zdyta ta broxetueva,” 
Now, it is not surprising that our author should consider this 
only a recrudescence of the vain encyclopedism against which 
Heraclitus had directed his saying, zodvpadiy vooyv ob dtddoxet, and 
against the Sophists’ practice of which Plato had protested.” In 
Ant. 135 B we have the scope of philosophy thus defined by the 
polymath: ag’ wy dy mhelorny ddEay Eyot tes cig gthocogiay * rhetotny 
Ody gyor dd€av, ef doxoin tOv teyvGyv Epretpos elvat racdy, 


This assumption is not justified by the dialogue. It merely asserts 
that, against the view which would reduce the philosopher to a general 
imaxpoc, there is at least one sphere, viz. the ‘fractical’ (in the Kantian 
sense), in which he must be first. And this contention is closely analogous 
to that of Gorg. 459 C ff. 

12The reduction of the virtues to cwdpootvy and dikaooivy in connection 
with wé4v¢ and oikia, as in Ant, 138 A f., was probably influenced by Jeno 
73 A ff., and is to a certain extent justified by it. 

13Tt can hardly be doubted that such a reference to Anz?t. 137 DE exists 
in Clit. 408 AB: e dé tic avdynn Ch sin, dotAw apewor } éevbépw didyew TH 
tolobTw Tov Biov éotiv apa, Kabarep TAoiov TapadévTt Ta THddMa THe dtavoiacg AAW, 
T& pabdvte THY TOV avOpdrwv KuBepvytiKhy, hy 6) od ToAsTiKhY, © LOxpartec, érovo- 
pacer moAAaxic, THY avTiv 6) Tabtyy dikaoTiKhy Te Kai diKawoobvyv w¢ éoTt Aéywv. 
Cf. also Ant. 136 B, quoted in note 6, 

14Arist. Anal. Post. 972 6 ff. See Zeller II a, p. 996 f. 

Arist. Met. 9824, 21 ff. Compare on this and what follows, Teichmiiller, 
der Begriff des reraidevuévoc, in Aristotel. Forsch. II, p. 55 ff. 

16 It is noteworthy that in the Anmterastae there is no reference whatever 
to the Sophists, a reference which in this connection Plato must surely 
have made, 


52 

ef 0& wy, ws mdctotwy ye zat pdhota aFtohdywy, paddy abtaov 
TaDTAa, Gd Tpoayxet TOTS EAevOgpots pabety, daa Evyvéacews 
eyetat, wy doa yetpovpytas. It has been observed that if 
Plato were the author of the dialogue this passage would contain 
the first distinct opposition of the liberal to the mechanical arts. 
But the whole sentence reads like a popular restatement of Aris- 
totle’s distinction between arts Sewpytizat and xorntizat.” So 
Aristotle says: SzohapBdvoyev On mp@tov wey exiotacbat nadyta 
tov gogov we svdsyetat, py xa0’ Exactoy eyovta extorty- 
pny abtoy,® 

We shall see, when we come to treat of the Apznomis, that 
Aristotle had early expressed his views on this subject in Jep? 
P:hocogias, which, aside from a few fragments, we now possess 
only in the revision presented in the first two chapters of his 
Metaphysics. It seems not improbable that in that popular work 
we have the real opponent against which the polemic of the 
Anterastae is directed.” This would not, of course, exclude the 
possibility of our author’s deriving suggestion from other Aris- 
totelian works,” and in the second argument against philosophy 
as zodvpabia we may perhaps recognize an attempt to reaffirm 
Plato’s position as against Aristotle’s criticism : éc0¢ wey oby ofovtac 


See Arist. Met. 9828 1 [Compare also Alc. I, 131 B]. 

8 Tbid. 982, 8 ff. 

19 Following the words above quoted from Azz., we have the mention of 
TexToviKh, TéxTwv and apyiréxtwv, with which compare Arist. Met. 9818, 30 
ff.: dvd Kai tobe apyiréxtovac rept Exactov Tiulwrépove Kai waAdov eidévat vopmilouev 
TOV yEelpoTexvav Kal copwrépove . . . . OC OV KaTa TO TpaKTiKOde Elva GodwTépovE 
bvtac, GAA Kata TO Adyov Eye. Q81b, 31: . . . cobrepoc, 6 dé TExviTHC TOV 
éuTreipwv, yerporéxvov J apyitéxtav, ai 68 Oewpntixal TOv ToinTiKav waddov, For 
toi¢ éhevbépore in Anterastae, 135 B, cf. Met. 982), 25 ff. 

Tt is just possible that the conceit of the mévrafdoc. which struck the 
fancy of the Alexandrians and made them suspect that Plato intended by 
it a characterization of Democritus (D. L. IX 37), may have been sug- 
gested by Aristotle’s appreciation of the pentathlete in Eth. Nic. A, 
1361), 3-26. Be that as it may, the conceit itself has quite the appearance 
of having originated with the Alexandrians. The names of Ilévraf/oc and 
Byra bestowed on Eratosthenes (did 70 devrepebecy év marti eider madeiag, Toi¢ 
axpowe éyyioavra, Suid.) by those at the Museum are evidence in point, unless 
these were likewise suggested by the Anterastae. See Susemihl, I, p. 413, 
n. 27. Besides, the remarks on moderationin gymnastic exercise in Anter. 
p. 134 recur almost verbatim in Arist. Eth. Nic. 1104 11 ff., and 1138b 28 ff. 
Grant supposes that Aristotle may have borrowed the words from Axterastae, 
but the reverse is decidedly the more probable. 


53 


mohitinoy xar Baothixdy xart olxovopexdy zat Oearotixdy elvat Tov abtéy, od 
zai@s Aéyovow.”" In this manner also we can the more readily 
account for the author’s misconception of Plato’s estimate of 
learning; for his interest was polemical rather than expository.” 


§ XII.—THEAGES. 


Critics have, almost with one accord, athetized this dialogue as 
a most manifest forgery.’ Its eclectic character, indeed, and the 
author’s negligence in his extensive and sometimes quite literal 
quotations from Plato,’ amply justify their sentence. Our com- 
piler, however, did not content himself with this, but proceeded 
to relate anecdotes and make statements concerning the datpdveoy 
which do not harmonize with the characterization of it as previ- 
ously given in Plato’s language.’ This test is simple and easily 
applied, showing the uncritical character of the author’s selection 
of materials, and must not be complicated with the enquiry into 
the real nature of Socrates’ dacudvov, Different opinions may be 


1Arist. Pol. A. 12528, 7 ff. 

22 For Plato’s opinion see Legg. 819 A, Philebus 62 A ff. and Soph. 232 A ff. 

1Socher, Knebel, and Grote believed it to be genuine; Miiller, partly 
genuine, but with a large spurious addition (127 D to close). All others 
reject it wholly. 

*See Theag. 127 E (also 127 A) from éorw évraifa kai Ipéddexog 6 Keiog to Kai 
Xapiv mpdc Tovtoie eidévac and compare Afol. 19 E from Gorep Topyiac 6 A. kai 
IIpédixog 6 K. to kai yap mpocewévat, Here even the anacoluthon of the 
original (rovrove reifovory) is retained, although 7eifovor occurred just before. 
Theag. 128 B: ovdév yap tobrwv ériotayat TOV pakapiwy Te Kal KaA@v pabyudtur, 
érel EBovAduny av, cf. Apol. 20 C: éy@ ody Kai avtoc éxadAvvéuny Te Kal HL puvvdunv 
av, eb Hriotduny Taita* GAd ov yap éxiotauat. Theag. 138 C: érel éyo olda tov 
éudv HriKiwtav Kai ddiyw mpecBvrépwr, ob mpiv uév tobTw ovveivar ovdevde GFtor Hoar, 
éreidn dO& ovveyévovto TobTw, év Trav dAiyw xpdvwe TavTwv PBedAtiove daivovTat ov 
mporepov yelpove, cf. Theaet.154D; Theag.128 D: éote yap ti Oeia poipa maperd- 
pevov éuol éx macdd¢ apsdpevov daipdviov, gore 62 TovTO dwvh, H brav yévyrat, dei jot 
onuaiver, 6 av péddw mpatrewv, Tobrov arotporqy, mpotpérec dé ovdérore—is taken 
quite literally from Aol. 31 D, with a change in the last sentence at once 
seen to be an unfortunate attempt to vary the phrase. TZheag. 129 B 
depends in like manner upon Zuthyd. 272 E; 129 E, upon T7heaet. 151 A; 
130 A, upon 7%eaet. 150 D and 151 E; 130 D and 131 A, upon Theaet 150 D. 

’ This contradiction becomes most conspicuous in 129 E (note ovAAdByra), 
which conflicts with the statement (128 D) that the dauéwov has only a 
negating or veto power. In dAdd Aafov (129 C) there is an admission fatal 
to the prophetic spirit ascribed to Socrates and hardly in keeping with the 
deification of the dawdwov (131 A). See also 7 gary 7 TOV Datmoviov 
(128 E). 


54 


held on that question, based on the representations respectively 
of Xenophon and Plato; but we are here concerned only with 
weighing the claims of the 7heages to be an authentic production 
of Plato’s. The Xenophontic account, therefore, may be entirely 
disregarded except as it affects the dating of our dialogue. In 
this respect, indeed, it may be of value; for, knowing that the 
prophetic function of the datuév:0ov was already illustrated in the 
Memorabilia,‘ we shall not follow Stallbaum in assigning 150 B.C. 
as a terminus post quem. 

Its author quite evidently sought to impersonate Plato and to 
have the 7heages accepted as his work; not only does its scheme 
of composition generally seem suggested by features of the 
Protagoras and the mention of Theages in the Repudliic,® but it 
abounds even more than others of this group of forged dialogues 
in imitations and reminiscences of Platonic passages easily recog- 
nized.’ I believe, moreover, that the particularly objectionable 


* Xenophon, Mem. I, i. 3-9. 

*Cicero (De Div., I 3, 6) mentions one Antipater of Tarsus (fl. ca. 150 
B.C.) by whom “ permulta collecta sunt, quae mirabiliter a Socrate divinata 
sunt.’? Upon this work Stallbaum supposed the 7heages to be dependent ; 
hence the date. 

6 Rep. 496 B: kai yap Oedye Ta pév GAAa rata TapeckevacTar Tpd¢ TO EKTECELV 
diAocogiac, 7 d& Tov GHuaTo¢e voooTpOdia ATEipyovoa avTov TOV TohTiKOY KaTExEL, 
may have given occasion for the use of his name (cf. also 4fo/. 33 E). The 
device of beginning the dialogue and then going elsewhere to complete it 
may be the contribution of the Protag.; but here the walk to the Porch of 
Zeus Eleutherius (also the scene of the Hryxias) is awkwardly accom- 
plished in utter silence, with only an asyndeton to mark it. Most of the 
characters mentioned are otherwise unknown, as Timarchus, Philemon, 
Nicias, Sannion. Euathlus even (6 oradcodpoyv) has the appearance of a 
name chosen to suit the fictitious character. 


'Theag. 121 A: ei oyodg, x. T. 2. possibly after Phaedo 58 D, though this is 
a common form of introducing a discussion—see II. A. 374 B, Cebes, Tab. 
§III, etc.; in writing Zheag. 121 C: 7 62 viv rapotoa éxibumia TobTw Tavu jE 
ooBei + ~oTe usv yap ovK ayevvAc, ogadepa dé, our author probably had Protag. 
312 BC in mind. The use and reference (apparently false) to Euripides of 
the verse cogol tipavvo: THv cody ovvovoia (125 B) was doubtless due to Rep. 
568 AB, while ovdév ériotduevoc mAhy ye. . . Tov épwriKOv (128 B) is a mis- 
placed bit of pleasantry derived (doubtless) from Symp. 175 D (cf. Lysis 
204 C), Perhaps 7heag. 122 B: ov yap éort repli brov Oewtépov av avOpwro¢ 
Bovaevoato,  mepi madeiag is a reminiscence of Legg. 765 E f., and the 
caution to define the subject-matter of consultation (ibid. BC) points appa- 
rently to Legg. 638 C (but see Phaedrus 237 B). 


55 


close (from 128 B) was called forth by the end of Alcibiades J, 
although we have already seen the sources whence the materials 
were drawn.’ In addition to this argument calculated to put a 
fuller meaning into Plato’s frequent parenthesis, éay Oed¢ e6¢dy, 
it also seeks, like J/ep? ’Apetis, to turn to serious account a pass- 
ing jest let fall by Plato in the Symposium.” Finally, its affected 
style" and impure diction” corroborate the verdict of spurious 


STheages here expresses his willingness to accept Socrates for his 
guide, éav ovrog é0éAy (128 C) knowing that his associates make sur- 
prising progress; to whom Socrates : oloda oi oiov rovré gore ; Theages : vai ua 
Al’, éywye, Ott EGY OV BobdAy. Socrates: obK, O’yabé, adda ce AEANOEv, oiov TOT’ 
éoriv, éy® dé cot dpdow (then follows the exposition of the mysterious offices 
of the dauévov). All this is clearly a development of what was rather 
abruptly broken off in Ale. J, 135 D: ’A. dv BobtdAy ob, & LOxparec. 
x. ov Kadac Aéyerc, © ’"AAKiBiddy. "A. GAAG mH xpi Aéyew; X. Ste Edv Gedc 
£4&27 (note Theag. 130 E: éorw otv, © Oéayec, to.abry 7 jetépa ovvovoia: Ea v 
wiv TG Oeg dtAov g, maw TOAD émiddoeg Kai Taxd, et dE wh, OV. Other 
things also point to the same dialogue: thus 7heag, 122 E: ovk édiddgaré os 
6 maThp Kai éraidevoev arep évOdde oi GAAot meraidevvTa . . . olov ypduatad Te Kai 
Kifapifew Kai madaiewv, cf. Ale. 7,106 E; Theag, 123 C ff. is strikingly like 
Alc. I, 124-5. Theag. 125 E: evéaiugy pév ay, oiwat, éywye Tipavvog yevéobat, 
padwota pév Tavtwv avOporur, ei dé uh, O¢ THEiotwv; cf. Alc. J, 104 B, and Adc. 
TZ, 141 AB; Theag. 126 A: kai ob y ay, oipat, Kai of GAdoe mavte¢ avOpwro, 
cf. Alc, JJ, 141 B: éy@ pév oipar . . . Kav Gddov ovtwoiv, This passage, it 
will be noted, displays a dependence also on A/c, J/. 

9See note 2, 

10 Theag. 130 E, virtue is said to go out of Socrates at a touch of his gar- 
ment, a mere extension of the ironical jest in Symp. 175 D; cf. also note 
10 to Axiochus. 

11 Note the asyndeton in 121 B and C, and again twice in 129 C. Affec- 
tation is evident in tpocayopetwpyer and Kaddv dvoua, 122 D, which are quite 
of a piece and remind one of 10 ypvoiov 7d Aaurpdv, Ep. J, 309 B. So too 
4 Ta apuata KvBepvdor, 123 C, a metaphor which is poetical and becomes 
common only in the faded modern languages. See Fritzsche ad loc., who 
refers to gubernare in Mart. IX 23 and Seneca Hippol. 1069 foll. But 
Arist. Phys. 203, 11 already speaks of Anaximander’s dzevpov as wepiéyevv 
anavta Kai Tavta KvBepvav, and Parmenides, v. 128, mentions the daiuwv 7 
Tavra KvBepvd (cf. also xuGepvatic as applied to the daiuwwv in Diels, Dox., 
p- 3355 15) Ammon. Comment. ad Arist. de interpr., §II, c. 7, says, 
according to the Stoics: oi Oeol tovtov Tov tpdrov Ta rept judc KvBEepvOcr. See 
also Polycarp. Ep. ad Philipp. c. 11: qui autem non potest se in his 
gubernare (doubtless representing «vfepvav in the Greek original) and 
KuBepvaTny TOv owuatwv nudv, Martyr. Polycarp.c. XIX. TZheag. 126 B: dA/or- 
plow Kai oixeiowe axovtiog is a bit of foolish subtlety that was gratefully 
caught up bythe author of the C/itopho and elaborated 408 A. See my 
note 2 to that dialogue. TZheag. 130 B: oiov 7 Td avdpdrodoy is too grossly 


56 


passed upon the dialogue by modern scholarship. Its date falls 
later than that of Alcibiades II.” 


§ XITI.—AccipiapeEs II. 


Of the many works inspired by the appearance and success of 
the Adczbiades J, our dialogue stands nearest to the original, 
though by no means equalling it in excellence. Its subject is 
prayer, a topic which, as we well know, engaged the thought of 
Socrates and Plato,’ and was, therefore, well suited to a Socratic 
dialogue. Even the conclusion reached is in perfect harmony 
with Plato’s teaching: reasons, consequently, for the rejection of 
the treatise must be derived from the manner in which the matter 
is presented. And, first, we have to note its indebtedness to 
Alc. / displayed even in the repetition of its peculiarities. 
Chief among these mannerisms is the catching up every (appar- 
ently) chance remark as an opportunity for introducing discus- 
sions almost or quite irrelevant to the ostensible purpose. Thus 
Alcibiades says of Oedipus (138 C), adka od pev, & Lwxpares, 
pawouevoy GvOownoy elpynxas* éxet tic dy cot doxet todpioat Sytatvwy 
totadt’ evSac0ar; and Socrates abruptly rejoins: rd patvec@ar apa 


vulgar to credit Plato with it, Xen. Mem. IV 2, 29, is less objectionable, 
and even A/c. J, 120 B, is not so offensive. The cheap erudition of 124 is 
more obtrusive than elsewhere in the Pseudo-Platonica. 

2T note 121 A: idsoAoyfoacba (Cobet’s conj. diadoyicacba: is rendered 
improbable by the party sequestering itself in the Porch); dox@ wou, 121 D, 
where Schanz reads Jdoxei wot, without MSS. authority, though retaining 
doxd pot, Alc. J, 135 C, and Alc. JZ, 150 D, vid. also Hipparch. 231 B; d6uow 
Tt TobTW y éAav, 129 D, a construction apparently not pre-Alexandrian, 
which Fritzsche has illustrated adloc. Plato uses duov only in the sense 
of ‘together with,’ Finally xarecre, 123 B, looks suspicious. 

13 See end of note 8. 

1For Socrates, see Xen. Mem, I 3, 1 ff.; for Plato, the Authyphro, with 
books V and X of the Laws. 

2The extent of this can be appreciated only after a minute comparison. 
I can here notice only a few points: The discussion of dpéviwor and agpoveg 
(140 E) harks back to Alc, J 125 A ff.; Alcibiades’ ambitions are described 
(141 AB) in almost the same terms as Adc. J 105 A-C; for of wév epi rodéuov 
te Kai eiphvyc (144 E) cf. Ale. J 107 D ff., a reference made more obvious by 
what follows (145 B); for 145 D: rd xard taityy rHyv Téexvyy BEATLOV, vid. Ale. Z 
108 A-E; for 146 D: AvoireAei dpa Toic ToAAoI¢ uAr’ eidévac (a wrong applica- 
tion of the principle, betraying the imitator) u7év fr’ olecBar eidévat, vid. 
Alc. I 116 D ff.; 149 A: yofpata odfév éAdtTw Kektyuévor (sc. of Aaxedarudvtol) 
the juetépac méAewc, cf. the glowing description of their wealth, A/c. 7 
122 E ff. 


57 


Orevaytivv cot doxst t@ gpovetv; This is the occasion for the long 
digression (138 C-140 D) on the paradox: zd¢ dgpwy patverat.® A 
similarly gratuitous disquisition is that (143 B-144 C) on the text, 
““Where ignorance is bliss, ’Tis folly to be wise.” Were the 
experiment worth the pains, one might be tempted to expunge 
this entire section; for here occur the absurd illustrations of 
Orestes and Alcmaeon, and the still more grotesque fiction of 
Alcibiades’ attempt against the life of Pericles. Another man- 
nerism appears in a striking fondness for. smart turns of expres- 
sion, many even bearing the same general stamp.* Our author 
is also a geAéynpos, possibly by sympathy, but more probably 
because of Plato’s well-known indulgence in apt allusions to the 
poet. But, while Plato in this respect also displayed unfailing 
good taste, this characteristic is here wanting,’ and while Plato 


This paradox had, indeed, its origin in the teaching of Socrates, but 
was carried to the extreme by the Stoics, cf. Cic. Parad, Stoic. IV, and 
Alex. Aphrod. De Fato, c. XXVIII. Some have thought our author a 
Stoic, but that was clearly an error, since he seeks to refute the propo- 
sition; but he may well have been led to the discussion because of this 
contention by the Stoics, 

*Note the following: 142 A: id tév ovKopavtdy TodopKobuevor ToALopKiav 
ovbéy éAdtTrw tig rd TOV TodEuiwn (ch. yoquata ovbév EAdTTW K.T.A., 149 A); 
142 A: evyecbar aotpatnyyrouc sivas uaddov h éotpatnynKkévat; 142 C: Bovdo- 
bévoug Gv ayévyta uaArov selva 7 yevéobar; 141 D: épacbévra tic tupavvidog ovbév 
qttov yrep éxeivoc tov TaWiKOv; 143 D: obtos tov Aéyovta, Ge ovK av ééAolg oor 
Tavta meTpayOat, evonueiv dei o¢ Kedeberv, GAAG waAAov TOA, ei TIC TA EvarTia Aéyot. 
The verb avevyoua: (142 D, repeated 148 B, but occurring nowhere else) 
may be classed with ayévyra and the equally forced aorpatyyfrovcg ; the reck- 
less indifference of kai ti dy tig Svvvocito (138 A) and the unmotivated 
abruptness of wd/uv ad wor doxei (147 E) are really vulgar. It is hard to say 
how the Greeks were affected by avdpév pyropixév rodutixdv dbonua gvoovTwV 
(145 E). Compare Athenaeus 591 F: iore dé ére nai Anpuddne 6 patwp & 
abanrpidog étaipag éradorojoato Anuéav* bv dpvatréuevov mote ext Tov Bhuatoc 
émeotéuioev ‘Yrepeidne eimav: Ov olwrhon, peipdKiov, peilov tig untpoc Exwv Td 
ghonua ; 

5See 140 A: ovv re ‘dvo (cf. Il. X 224) here inept, suggested by Symp. 
174 D; 141 D: ytd te wai mpwila (cf. Il. II 303) meant to mend éy6ée¢ kai 
mpqnv in Gorg. 470 D, by which passage our author was led into a most 
striking anachronism; for he thus brings in the death of Archelaus, occur- 
ring in 399 B.C., as a subject of conversation between Alcibiades and 
Socrates, presumably thirty years before (for Alcibiades is surely consid- 
ered here, as in A/c, J, as still a very young man), whereas both had died 
before Archelaus. Again, oi dé Kai avtol opjow site aracbadiaow eite adpa- 
diac xpqH eimeiv, imép udpov dAye’ Exovor (142 D) is from Od. I 33 f. with 
additions from another poet made in Plato’s manner. 


58 


never attributes to Homer any works except the Iliad and Odys- 
sey, he is here credited with the Margites.® Again, the fictitious 
war between the Athenians and Lacedaemonians, with the 
embassy to the oracle of Ammon (148 D ff.), is probably only an 
ill-conceived invention to rival the myth of Critias in the 7zmaeus. 
Yet, despite this general familiarity with the works of Plato and 
not infrequent imitation of them,’ the diction betrays the influence 
of a later age.” This last mark is so convincing that it were no 
wonder if the doubts as to our dialogue’s authenticity arose from 
a sense of this fact. Some one, to be sure, absurdly enough 


6 First quoted in Plato’s manner (147 B) rd tov rowrov, then Homer is 
expressly named (147 D). The works of some tragic (?) poet probably 
supplied the phrases 6owmep av AaBporepov Exoupion TO THe TbyNe (147 A) and 
dvareddv év Teddyet, ypdvov ov uakpov Biov Héwv (ibid), The expression papyov 
tt (148 A) doubtless contains an extremely insipid pun on Mapyirye, of 
which no student of Plato can believe him capable. 

TSee Rep. 474 CD for a list of euphemisms like that.in 140 CD. The 
sentence éxeivo¢ uév Gorep ovd? niyeto, ovd’ Geto (141 A) is on the model of 
such as Apol, 21 D: éya é, Gorep ody ovk oida, ovd8 oiouat, or Meno 84 A; the 
long parenthesis (143 B-144 C) on the value of ignorance seems manifestly * 
based on Legg. 638 C, and the abrupt introduction of the idea of the 
highest good (143 D ff., esp. 144 D) comes just as clearly from Charm, 
174 Bff. The verse iv’ avrocg atrov tuyyxavy kpatiotog wv (146 A) was no doubt 
suggested by Gorg. 484 E. The clause @ ti dei ka” éxaora Aéyew (138 C, and 
cf. 140 B: oi¢ ti dei xa” Exacta Aéyery) was surely intended as an imitation 
of Plato, but betrays its author, since Plato employs it only in referring 
back briefly to things previously enumerated in detail. 

SAmong expressions unplatonic or late I note these: éoxvipwraxévat, 
138 A; dixyv dedwkévai, 139 D, ‘repent of it’; anepyaciay and diampatrortat, 
140 B; peyadowbyouc, 140 C, and peyadowvyiav, 150 C, deprecatingly; #v év 
apxn Tov Adyov, oxertéov eivar, 140 D3; o¢ mdvtac, 141 B, and o¢ Td TOAAa ye, 
146 C, like @¢ wAeiora; the poetic kexvpyxédra, 141 B, and xardapa, 143 B;. 
eimeiv (for épwrdy) ei évdov éori, 143 E (cf. Diog. Laert. VII 172); av dural, 
145 A, used absolutely; for rvyov, 140 A, 150 C, see note 2 to Eryxias; 
tabrqv, 145 D, for éxdotyv tobrwr; ava Adyov tobroic, ibid., where Plato has 
ooabtac (cf. Zuthyph. 13 C, etc.) or obtw kata Tov avrov Adyov (cf. Lysis 215 E); 
Exdedunévat, 148 A; 6 Ti wore Ev VG Exec TMpd¢ TavTa, 150 B, cf. also 143 A; 
noewe <av> idouw deFduevov éuavtdv, 151 B, a curious variant on the usual 
n0éwe dv deEaiuyv, intended, I presume, to match the preceding words of 
Alcibiades: érav éxeivyy tiv nuépav éAOovoav ido. Besides the foregoing 
examples, note: oidauev, 142 A, 145 D (cf. oidate, Demod. 311 E); aroxpibjvat, 
149 B; éxavicc, 149 D, ‘camp’; the forms uybév and ovfév, which, according 
to Stallb. ad 141 D, are presented by all the best MSS. Hermann and 
Schanz properly print these forms, though not consistently. 








oh AOLA\BRA} RA Ry y =, 
OF THE 
(os IVERSITY 
a9 REG CALIFORNIA 


thought of attributing it to Xenophon;® but it is not improbable 
that Alc. II 147 A: dvev yap tabtys <sc. t7¢ Tod Bedtiotov 
éxtotiuns>, bownep av AaBpdtepoy Exovuplayn TO THS TOYS 
Ho mept yonpdtwy xztTHoty H PpOpHy 7H xat dhho te TOY tOL0b- 
tTwy, tocobtw pellw apaptypata an’ adtTa@y advarzatoy 
gare yfyvec0at, though the thought is common Socratic prop- 
erty,” is only a rhetorical revision of a saying of Aristotle’s (frag. 
57, Rose, from the Protrepticus?): rots yap draxetpévorg Ta mept THY 
poyny xaz@g odbte mhodtOS odt’? toyds odte xadhhog TOY 
dyaddyviatev' add’ bow zep ay abtat pakhoy ai drabécets 
~a0’ brepBorny bndpFwot, tocobtTw xat zhetw xat petfow 
tov xextynpevoy Bladntovet ywprts Yporvyxcews Tapayeve- 
pevat, 


§ XIV.—ERYXIAS. 


The Aryxias is distinctly the most valuable contribution of 
antiquity to the science of political economy. The thoughts that 
wealth depends upon value; that value means utility, and utility 
is measured by the directness with which a given thing subserves 
the primary needs of meat, drink and shelter; and that intellec- 
tual attainments constitute an important part of one’s capital, are 
here clearly enunciated. Owing to its intrinsic worth we should 
therefore be pleased to know the grounds on which ancient critics 
agreed’ to athetize this dialogue. But we may be quite sure that 
these grounds were external rather than internal; for the form 
and language’ are too like to Plato’s to have aroused their sus- 


%Athenaeus XI 506 C: 6 ydp dettrepoc <’AAKiBiddyc> i716 TiwY ZEevodavtoc 
eivat déyerae The fact mentioned in note 1 probably accounts for the selec- 
tion of Xenophon. 

There are various passages in which Plato expresses the thought, but 
none of them corresponds so well as that quoted from Aristotle. If it were 
not already clear that 4éc. 77 is later than Aristotle, there might be room for 
a possible doubt as to these precise utterances. The éxoupicy does not 
occur in Aristotle, but otherwise the equivalence in the two passages is 
sufficiently plain. 

1Diog. Laert. III 62, 

2In view of the general excellence of style it may seem hypercritical to 
call attention to the painfully awkward period constituting §X. The diction 
is less pure ; note &¢ 7uac, 392 C3; Ta ei¢ TAOvTOY HKovTa, 392 E; avrimailovrac, 
395 B; immaciac, 396 A; tredéfw, 396 E; otwubdsov and éyxAeiale, 397 D; 
adéac, 401 E; yaotpiwapyo and oivoddAvyec, 405 E. So Adyove, ob¢ vuri diadeyé- 
peOa, 395 A, is strange; tTuydv, 399 B, does not occur in Plato, but see 
Alc, 11 140 A, 150 C, Zpist. XIV, and Alcyon §1V ; of dvre¢ avopwra, 394 C, 


60 


picion. Yet the evidence of spuriousness is not far to seek. 
Quite probably this dialogue grew out of the discussions in the 
Euthydemus (278 E-282), from which not only the central idea, 
but also several lesser details are apparently derived.* The first 
part (392-394 E) proceeds in a manner quite Platonic; but thence- 
forth the argument becomes truly eristic. Were Plato its author 
we should doubtless find the final paradox characterized as such, 
whereas we are left with the conviction that the conclusion must 
stand,—dote && dvdyxns dy july gaivowto of zhoverdtatot poyOnpdrata 
draxsiuevot, We know, indeed, that Plato rated wealth low in 
the scale of Goods; but the words of Cephalus (Rep. 330 D ff.) 
are not compatible with those of Critias (Zvyx. 396 E), and Plato’s 
own utterances in the ZLaws* show that wealth was not in his 
view dwgeés, the objective point of the argument here. These 
indications are confirmed by the fact that Plato’s immediate suc- 
cessors, Aristotle, Speusippus, Xenocrates, Crantor, opposed that 
view,’ which characterized the Cynics and descended from them 
to the Stoics. Seeing therefore that the author, though taking 
an independent position, sought to imitate Plato,® I follow 


is noteworthy; dgaivecfa: éuotye doxei, 399 C, and éuorye dokei ot Tw daivecbat, 
406 B, are decidedly curious; ta mpdc riva ypeiav yphomua xpjoba xphuara 
éort, 401 B, is a sample play on cognate words; the use of éfi¢, 405 DE, 
though a word whose meaning in Plato is difficult to determine, reminds 
one strongly of Arist. Met. 1022 to ff.; finally, Aoyidsov, 401 E, is a word 
characteristic of the Eristics, as may be seen from Isocrates Or. XIII, §20. 

’Compare Zryx. 393 E: oitivec udduota et rpdtroev, with Euthyd. 280 B; 
Eryx. 397 A: et 0& ye uy brapyor rAovolw eivac Te avOpOry, K.7.2,, with 
Euthyd, 281 BC, Diimmler (Akademika, p. 274) recognizes the similarity 
of our passage to the Zuzhyd., but tries to vindicate the argument for 
Prodicus. In this respect his conclusions may well be doubted. 

4728 Ef.: o¢ 0’ aitwe 7 TOV YonudTor Kal KTHUaTwY KTHOLC Kal TYuhoEws KATA TOV 
avtov prbudy exer. Ta wésv UrépoyKa yap éxdoTwv TobTwv éyOpac Kal oTdoELG aTEp- 
yaleta taic méAect Kai iia, Ta 0 EAAixovTa dobAciag Ge TO TOAD. Vid. also 
Legg. 717 C. 

See Cic, de fin. IV 18, 49: ‘‘Aristoteles, Xenocrates, tota illa familia 
non dabit, quippe qui valetudinem, viris, d7zvztias, gloriam, multa alia bona 
esse dicant.’’ Plut, adv. Stoicos, p. 1065, oi row Zevoxpdrove xai Xrevoirmov 
KaTyyopouvres eri TE pH THY byeiav adidgopov Hysiobar myndé TOV TAODTODY 
avwgeréc. Crantor, ap. Sext.. Empir. (Bekker, p. 558, |. 4 ff.) rotrwv obv 
axobvoartec of "EAAnjvec ta wév Tpwreia TH ApeTh aToddcovel, Ta dé OevrepEia TH byeia, 
Ta O& Tpita TH 700VvH, Tedevtaioy dé Tagover Tov TAvTOV (imitating loosely the 
scheme in the Piz/ebus) makes the strongest concessions. 

®6See supra for the Zuthydemus; 393 B: Kéxuynxa k.t.A. is probably a 
reminiscence of 7heaet. 143 AB; dvayéusvor, ac, 392 E, and avtaviyeto ... 





61 


Steinhart’ in attributing the Avyxzas to some later Socratic in 
sympathy chiefly with Antisthenes and the movement that even- 
tuated in the Stoa. The ostentatious display of learning in respect 
of ancient currency * is in perfect keeping with such origin, a little 
after 300 B.C. 


§ XV.—ALCIBIADES I. 


Every age may be said to possess its own peculiar spirit, which 
in some one of its leaders becomes incarnate. This individual 
then comes naturally to be the ideal of his contemporaries and 
for future generations the most adequate exponent of the charac- 
ter of his time. Such was the singular eminence attained by 
Alcibiades as the type of the Athenian temper during the latter 
half of the fifth century B.C.; and consequently the relations 
between him and Socrates acquired a universal significance, as of 
something not merely individual but representative. That the 
ancients themselves appreciated this circumstance is shown by 
the appearance of the Socratic dialogues, entitled Alcibiades, 
which were attributed to men of the next generation.’ Of these 
only two remain, both ascribed with little hesitation? to Plato. 
Modern scholarship, indeed, has tended to pronounce them 
spurious; but, though this judgment is undoubtedly correct, the 


O¢, 398 E, come evidently from Charm. 155 D3; 395 B, the checkmating, see 
Rep. 487 C; 395 C, spelling Socrates’ name, see Zheaet. 203 A; in 403 D 
Critias says: éyO rdvv odddpa robrove tod¢e Adyoue axpobuevoc, od¢ Kal od viv 
Toyxavere 6) dtetiOv, dyayat, Hlmov oiv éyo <Socrates> dri poe doxeic ob, O 
Kpitia, obtw¢ éuov yaiperv axpoduevoc, OoTrep TOV Hawwddv of Ta ‘Ouhpov érn adovory, 
This seems clearly an elaboration of the situation in Jom 532 D: yaipw yap 
axobwv tuav Tv cog@v, Socrates’ comparison here being suggested by the 
discussion of rhapsodes there. For 398 C: aldévta rap’ érépov f aitov 
éfevpdvta, see note 8to A/c, 7, Onthe other hand the Zryxias was imitated 
in Hipparchus (see note 2 to Hipparch.). The opening sentence of Cebes’ 
Tabula also imitates the beginning of Zryxias. 

TIn Miller, vol. VII, p. 14. 

SZryx. 399 E ff. I may here add that in 395 C: domep ov mapdy Toi¢ 
&utpooberv AeAeyuévorg we probably have a reference to the proverb found in 
Heraclitus (ap. Clem. Alex. Strom. V 14, p. 718 P): dotvetoe axotoavrec 
Kwgotow éoixaor’ dati avTolos wapTupel mapedvtag ameivat, occurring. also in 
Nauck’s Frag. Trag. Graec. ed. II, sub Adespota No. 517, and in Aristo- 
phanes’ Knights, 1118 ff. 

1Antisthenes, Aeschines and Euclides are named, D. L. II 61, II 108, 
VI 18. 

2See note 9 to Adc, LZ, 


62 


final presentation of the case against their claims has not been 
made.’ oh Tae 

It is a significant fact that many of the ancients regarded Alc. [ 
as peculiarly adapted to serve as an cicaywyy els tods Mhdtwvos 
draddyous. Its merits are indeed quite considerable,* though it 
hardly attains the high standard of ’Arrixdv, edyapt, axgprttoy, 
dvev0egs.2 The very qualities, in fact, which won for it the 
unstinted praise of the Neo-Platonists prove its spuriousness 
beyond a doubt. What then are these characteristics? In the 
first place, it is clear that the argument leads, with far less devia- 
tion from the direct course than any Platonic dialogue, to a result 
also more positively maintained than is Plato’s wont. Further- 
more, in its character as a primer of Platonism in regard to ethics 
and politics, A/czbzades J contains a greater number of distinctively 
Platonic thoughts than can be found in any of even the greater 
single works of Plato. In this respect the dialogue may be pro- 
nounced zoo Platonic. But there is also a reverse side to this 
picture; for this predominating genuineness of content is pur- 
chased at great cost to the form. True to its aim as a protreptic 
discourse calculated to give philosophy its rightful place in the 
life of man, it proceeds eclectically, choosing the finished con- 
cepts and philosophical commonplaces available for its purpose 
and combining them cleverly, indeed, but only formally for the 
attainment of the intended result. It will be interesting to sketch 
the argument and to indicate the sources of the commonplaces 
which are so lavishly introduced. | 

Alcibiades desires to know why Socrates is his most persistent 
lover. Socrates replies that he has perceived that A. is restlessly 
aspiring to greater things, and not valuing himself upon his wealth 


’The defense of Alc. J by Stallbaum (V, p. 193 foll.) and Steinhart 
(1, p. 135 foll.) was perhaps sufficient as against the objections of Schleier- 
macher and Ast; but Steinhart even there perceived the weakness of his 
case and later gaveitup. Zeller (Zeitschr. f. d. Alterthumsw. 1851) mainly 
restated Ast’s criticisms; but Cobet (Mnemosyne, n.s. vol. II, p. 369 foll.) 
took some good points, though chiefly concerned with reconstituting the 
text. 

* Particularly the comparison of Alcibiades’ estate with that of the Persian 
and Lacedaemonian kings (121 A ff.) is conceived very much in the spirit 
of Plato. 

~ 5 Albinus’ Eicaywyf in Hermann, Vol. VI, p. 148. Kviéala (Zeitschr. f. 
oesterreich. Gymnasien, 1863) has pointed out many of the superficialities 
of our dialogue; but some of his strictures upon it are quite unfounded, 


+ cipal EP 


M \RRAR Y 
OF THE 


| UNIVERSITY | 
> c 
63 ‘ee Cc "7 o »% \ ». 7 ud 


and noble birth. His ambitions are far-reaching, but to be 
realized only by the aid of Socrates. Hitherto the god had 
restrained the latter from addressing him, because his hour was 
not yet come. But now that A., almost twenty years of age,° is 
about to come forward as a political leader, the silence must be 
broken. In order to give counsel, he must possess knowledge’ of 
those things with which politicians deal. What knowledge has 
he? Such only as he may have been taught or may himself have 
discovered.* He has had teachers only in writing, wrestling and 
playing on the lyre,’ but is not to give counsel in such matters. 
He intends to advise concerning peace and war," which involve 
the knowledge of justice," a knowledge which he has not discov- 
ered, because he never sought, never even suspected the need of 
seeking it,” and of which he can point to no better teachers than 


6123 D: én ovdétw yeyovac adddpa eikoow. Yet Pericles is still alive 
(104 B), so that Alc. must have been born in 449 B. C. at least, if there is 
not here an anachronism. Ordinarily his birth is dated 445 B. C. 

7106 D. See 107 B: eidétog . . . mepi Exdorov ovxBovAg, which is repeated 
Demod, 381 B. Cf. Dio Chrysostom. Orat, XX VI. 

8106 D: ovxovy Tavita uévov oisba & rap’ GAAwv éuatlec } aire EEnipec; This 
is the first of the Platonic commonplaces, see Lach. 186 CE; Theaet, 150 D; 
Euthyd. 285 A; Phaedo 85 C,99 C; Crat. 439 B; Rep. 618 C; Hipp. Maj. 
285 D. In Plato there is no strong insistence on it; but here it is one of 
the principal instruments of the argument. The importance attaching to 
the disjunction here certainly accounts, in great part at least, for its 
frequent recurrence in the later spurious works. See Aryx. 398 C; Hip- 
parch.228 D; Demod. 381 BE; Zpist. 77, 312 B, 313 B; VII, 341 C, 345 B. 

9106 E. With 107 Acp. Arist, Eth. Nic. 1112) 1 ff. 

W107 D, see Gorg. 455 B ff. and Arist. Rhet. 1359> 19 ff. 

Uto7 D-1og C. In this connection another commonplace is introduced 
(107 D-109 E): xp7 0” ovy otc BéATiov (sc. Todeueiv); . . . Kal TéTe OréTE BEA- 
TLOV; . . . Kal ToCOVTOY ypdvoy bcov duetvov; This recurs 108 E, and A/c, JZ 
143 BC, which latter passage shows clearly that the thought was derived 
from Legg. 638 C: doxovoi wor mavrec ol Adyw Te AaBdvrec ExitHdevua Kal mpobé- 
pevoe Weyetv avTo h éxaweiv evifi¢c pybév ovdaudc dpav Kata tpdrov, GAAa TavTor 
moliv, olov et Of Tic ErawvicavTéc Tivog Tupotc, Bp@ua w¢ ayabdr, evbd¢ wWéyot, U7 
Svan viduevog avtov pre THY Epyaciav uAte THY Tpocdopay, bvtiva Tpdrrov Kai oloTLOL 
kai wel? Ov kai drwe Eyovta Kal brwc Tpoodépery Eyovorv. Cp. Arist. Eth. Nic. 
11046 22f. The word axpoyerpifecba:, 107 E, occurs also Arist. Eth. Nic. 
TII14 15. . 

%i06 D. This rests upon the general Socratic commonplace that the 
confession of ignorance is the beginning of wisdom, and forms the key- 
note of our dialogue, which attempts to convict A. of a false conceit of 
knowledge in order to prepare him for entrance uponthe philosophical life. 


64 


the multitude.” But they are not competent to instruct one in 
those things on which, as on justice and injustice, they are not 
agreed.“ Thus, as he has neither learned nor discovered the 
nature of the just, Alcibiades admits that he has refuted himself 
because he has himself made the affirmations which deny his 
former assertions.” But though he confesses to ignorance of the 
just, he asserts that the Athenians take. counsel not concerning 
what is right or wrong, but about expediency,” which may conflict 
with justice. Socrates challenges A. to persuade him of that as 
he would the assembly,” and proceeds to show that the just is the 
honorable, the honorable the good, and the good the expedient.* 
A. now becames bewildered, thus revealing ignorance even of his 
ignorance, for if aware of it he would not entertain an opinion.” 
False conceit of knowledge is the fruitful source of error.” IfA. 


13110 E. Alcibiades here adduces the example of his vernacular, which 
was derived from Prot. 327 E. 

14311 B ff., an argument borrowed from Zaches 186 D and repeated after 
Alc. Jin Minos 116 D, 117 B, and Demod. 380 A. 

112 D-113 C (vid. 114 E,116 D). Reference is here made to Eurip. 
Hippolytus, v. 352: cov rd0’, ovx éuod KAtecc, which was so greatly ridiculed 
by Aristophanes, Equites. init. The questioning in 112 E certainly was 
influenced by that in JZezo 82 A foll., esp. 82 E. 

16113 D. This looks like the introduction of an Aristotelian distinction, 
only to show its inadequacy by identifying the ovudépoy with the dixaov, 
See Arist. Rhet. 1358> 20: réAoc . . . 7 mwév ovuBovietorte Td ovudépov, and 
ibid. 33. 

My14 Bs: éué éxxAnoiav véuicov Kai djpov: Kai Exe Toi ce Oehoer Eva EkaCTOV 
mele, and 114 D: év éuol éuueAérnoov (for which see Phaedrus 228 E: 
éuavtov oor éumedetav mapéyerv ov mavu dédoxtat), The former passage, with 
its amplification in 114 B-D (rod airov gaivetar roAdote te Kai éva Treibew) 
harks back to Phaedr. 260 E foll., and was considered sufficiently striking 
to be reapplied in Anmterast, 137 D. 

%tr5 A-116 D, This argument occurs with modifications in every 
ethical dialogue of Plato, cp. e. g. Gorg. 474 and also Xen. Mem, III, viii 
5 ff. There are, however, certain indications of a possible dependence on 
Aristotle. Note, e.g. 115 C: dpa roivuy ei, 9 ye xaddv, kal ayabév, Then 
115 B almost seems to reflect Arist. Rhet. 13592 3 ff., 1366> 36 ff. and Eth, 
Nic. 11172 28 ff. 

19116 E-118 B. This also is a great Platonic commonplace. Phaedo 
79 C foll. is a very instructive passage which throws light on the whole of 
Alc. J, See also Hipp. Min. 372 D: rAavOpuat repi ravra, dijdov ort dia TO pI 
eldévat. Ale. [117 A: ov OfAov bre dia Td wy eidévas, wept abTaY, dia TavTa TAaYG; 

2117 E: rivec ovv of duaptdvovtec; . . . GAAvt Aeirovrat of uy eiddrec, oiduevor 
d’ eldévac; The original of this passage, which sums up another Platonic 
commonplace, is doubtless Soph. 229 C: dyvoiac 0’ obv wéya Ti por doKd Kat 


05 


knew, he could teach,” but he like other statesmen enters politics 
untaught and ignorant of the real issues.” He should not con- 
sider Athenians his rivals, but rather his co-workers, recognizing 
as his competitors the kings of Persia and Sparta;” for thus he 
would be led to sobriety of temper and wholesome self-scrutiny.”* 
This consideration humbles A. and induces him to seek Socrates’ 
aid in his task of self-improvement. (Then follows along and 
trifling digression® on the virtue of a gentleman.) The true self, 
however, must first be discovered before we can attend to it.” 
There is a distinction between the belongings of the body and 
the body, and between ourselves and our belongings.” To know 
what we are we should first know the zdea of the self; but as® 


Nahevov adwpicduevoy dpav eidoc, maar Toig aAAoig avTHe avtiorpodov pépeotv, 
Iloiov 67; TO wy Kkatecddta Te dokeiv eidévac’ J” ob Kivduveter 
mavta dca dtavoia ogahrdueba yiyvecbar raorv. This thought 
is also greatly elaborated in Xen. Mem. IV 2, 26 ff. likewise in connection 
with yvah cavrév (ibtd. 24). 

71118 C foll. This tenet underlies almost al] of Socrates’ ethical ques- 
tioning. If one have a virtue, he must know what it is, and consequently 
be able to define and explain it (cf. the Charmides, for example). See 
Xen. Mem, IV 6, 1: Lwxpdryc yap rove pév eidérac ti Exactov ely TOV bvTwr, 
evoutle Kal Toic dAdow dv éEnyeicba divacba, Ability to teach then becomes a 
test of knowledge. A/c. 7118 D: katdv yap dfrov Texuhpiov TovTo Tv émiota- 
Hévav oriobv ote érlotavrat, émeddy Kal GAAov oloi 7 dow arodeiEae Excotapevor, 
with which compare Arist. Met. 981 7: dAwe Te onueiov Tov eidétrog TO Otvacba 
diddoxerv éotiv, For the application of this criterion to Pericles and the 
other statesmen, see Prot. 319 E foll., AZeno 94 B foll., Gorg. 515 E. 

118 B foll. 

73119 C foll. 

**124 AB, Here our author first introduces the Delphic yva%& cavrév, 
which recurs in 131 B and 133 C, always abruptly foisted in as cw@pootvy 
éorl ro éautév yeyvooxev from Charm. 164 C foll. Repeated Anz. 138 A. 

124 D-127 E. This excursus serves only as an opportunity for adding 
an illustration of Socrates’ method of interrogation; for the discussion 
does not in the least advance the argument. The examples here adduced 
recur almost without change in Zheag. 123 C ff. and again in Aipparch. 
126 A foll, 

Mae7. Ef. 

128 A foll. This is a distinction which Plato very clearly made in the 
Laws 717 C, 726 A foll. In this passage there are several commonplaces. 
Alc. 7128 B: ap’ oiv bray tig te PéATiov Tory, TéTE Oph Aéyerc éxripédecar, cf. 
Xen. Mem. I 2, 32 foll. For Geparcia wuyic, cduaroc, etc., in 131 B, see 
Rep. 585 C foll. (cf. Zs. VII, 331 AB, and note 19 to Letters), 

*®129 AB: gépe df, tiv’ dv tpdrov eipefein adTO TS ALTO; OiTW ev yap av 
Tax’ evpommev Ti ToT’ Eopév aviTol, TobTov 0? Ere bvTec év ayvoia adbvatoi cov. That 


66 


this is a difficult matter, it may suffice to become acquainted with 
the empirical self.* The soul, as the agent using the body and 
its belongings, is the true self which the Delphic yy@0e cavrdy 
intended ; and he alone cares for himself who cares for his soul.*° 
Self-knowledge is difficult to describe, but the example of the 
eye beholding itself mirrored in the pupil—the divinest part—of 
another eye, may present to us in figure the truth that a soul to 
know itself must,look to its most characteristic and divine part in 
which resides wisdom and knowledge.” And only he who knows 


the interpretation is correct follows, I believe, from the use of avrév in 
128 E: tic téyvy BeAtiw roi aitév; Then aird rd airé means ‘the self 
itself,’ as avtoc 6 avOpwroc means ‘the man himself.’ Therefore I would 
read in 130 D;: viv 68 GvTi abrod Tov avTow avrov (see 128 E) éxacrov 
éoxéupmeda bri éori, Kal iowe éEapKéoer. It is quite plain that our author, 
finding nothing in Plato to guide him, wrestled desperately with the 
language to find an expression for his thought. For the concrete self he 
retained the masc. (airdv), for the abstract, ideal self he used the neut. 
(ai76). Schlottmann (Das Vergaingliche und das Unvergingliche in der 
menschl. Seele nach Aristoteles, Halle, 1873) understands Aristotle’s voi¢ 
mowtiKoc to be the ideal ego or self, and the vov¢ mabyrixdéc the empirical self. 
This is a vexed question on which I have no opinion; but Iam much inclined 
to think that the author of A/c. Zso interpreted Aristotle, and wrote the 
dialogue largely to illustrate his conception of that problem, with the aid of 
the figure of the eye-envisaging eye. I venture this statement, however, 
only as a conjecture. Plut. Pyth, Orac. cc. 21-23 illustrates the later 
development of the doctrine among the Platonists. 

*°130 D, quoted in preceding note. 

°° 126 A-133 E. Compare with this passage Arist. Eth, Nic, 1177> 30 ff. 
and 1168> 28 ff. This argument is foreign to Plato, but the materials 
worked up into it are borrowed from him. See Legg. 726A foll. But our 
author has Rep. 353 E foll. particularly in mind. Note opidy, 129 C, cf. 
Rep. 353 A; 133 B: 7 ddbaruod aperh, vid. Rep. 353 B: ap’ obv Kai aperi) 
odbaruayv éort; cf. Iambl. Protrept. §II. Alc. 7126 B: dWewe wév Tapayyvo- 
Mévnc, TvdAdtytoc dé aroytyvouévac, cf. Rep. 353 C; cf. also 130 A with Lep. 
353 D. With 128 A we may perhaps compare Aristotle’s notice of Socrates 
the Younger in Met. 1036> 24 ff. 

*1132 D foll. Charm. 167 C foll., 168 D gave rise to this discussion. There 
the concept of self-knowledge is subjected to criticism anda parallel drawn 
with ‘sight-seeing sight’ (oWuc dwewc), which seems inconceivable. Now our 
author takes up the problem and confesses the insuperable difficulties by 
substituting the ‘ eve-seeing eve’ for the former example. Thus he hopes at 
least to convey in figure the outline of his thought. It is at least inter- 
esting to compare this with Arist. de Anima 4132 I: o¢ 0’ 7 dyuc Kai 7 Ovvamec 
Tov dpydvov 7 Wuyh (sc. évreréxetd éori)* Td dé cua 7d duvdper dv- GAH OorEp 6 
opbarude 7 Kon (vid. Ale. 1133 A) Kai 7 dye, KaKel 7 WuxH Kal TO C@pa TO C@or. 


yy ee Tee ee 





67 


himself can know others and the nature and advantage of the 
state, from true knowledge of which springs happiness.” Yet, 
since in order to render the citizens happy A. must give them not 
only prosperity but also virtue,* he must first have it to confer ;* 
and if he act with justice and wisdom he will please God,” and 
not, like the man of tyrannical soul,** work the ruin of the state. 
A. now pledges himself to turn his face toward the*perfect life, by 
the grace of Socrates. ‘Nay,’ replies the latter, ‘say rather by 
the grace of God.’ 

Any one who has noted the direct progress of the dialogue and 
thé manner in which the transitions from point to point have been 
made must be convinced that our author had a definite position 
to establish, and that the necessary materials were all furnished 
ready to his hand. The accompanying notes have called atten- 


It is of course well known that Plato, at least in his later period, attributed 
immortality only to the intellectual part of the soul, to which alone there- 
fore he could also in strictness give the name of soul or self. In so far the 
Alc. I develops logically the Platonic position, in which almost all of 
Plato’s followers shared. With Alc. I 133 C compare Arist, de Anima 
4tob ir ff. and 4292 23. 

82133 Ef. Compare Xen. Mem. IV, ii, 24: ayoAj yap dv dAdo Tr qdeu, ei 
ye uno” éuavrov éyiyvwoxov and the facetious words of Menander apud Stobaeus 
ITI, xxi, 5 (Hense). 

33134 B: ovk dpa retxav ovdé Tpihpwv ovd2 vewpiwy déovrat ai wdAELC, et uéAAOVONL 
evdaiovgoew, ovdé zAGGove ovde peyéOove Avev apetHe. Cf, Arist. Rhet. 
1360b 14: égorw 69 evdatmovia etvrpagia pet’ apety¢. See also 
Aristotle, frag. 57 (from Protrepticus ?): vduile d& trav evdacyoviay ovK év TO 
ToAAa KeKTHoOa yiyvecbar, uaAdov 0? év TH THY YuxHy eb draxeicbas. 

34134 C. 

35134 D: of te Kal 7 wéAic OeogtAade mpdgere. In GeodiAGe our author is 
adding another characteristic Platonic touch, only not to omit it. Cp. 
Rep, 352 AB and Arist. Eth, Nic. X, viii, 13. 

%In 135 AI would read vovpy iatpixdy uy éxovtt, TUPAaVVOVVYTE OE THE 
nd? éxinAgtrovtTe avT@, thus with the smallest change yet proposed 
combining the readings of Band T. Whatever the reading adopted, it is 
clear that we have here an allusion to the tyrannical soul of Bk. IX of 
the Republic, as in 122 A: dvtwe Baoidebe, apyxwv TpTov Tov év aiT@, we have 
one to the &ingly soul. Cf. also Gorg. 491 DE. 

37135 D: éav Bovsy ob, © LOpparec. Ov Knadde Aéyewc, © "AAKiBiady, *AAAG 
mac xpn Aéye; “OTe édv Oedc e6éAy. Here we have given the conditions of 
Alcibiades’ progress, already hinted at in the saying that the ged had pre- 
vented S. from accosting him until his time was come, In the present 
passage, together with the interest displayed in the veto power of Socrates’ 
dawovioy, there lies the basis of the extravagancies of the 7heages (see notes 
8 and 9 to 7heages), 


68 


tion to the passages in which Plato has formulated the thoughts, 
sometimes by tortuous dialectic processes, which here recur only 
as finished products grown commonplace.“ He who contrived 
this cento knew well the externals of Plato’s manner as he also 
knew the import of his teaching; and in his drawing upon Homer, 
Aesop, and the comic poets” he has in part well imitated the 
master. But he has offended grossly against the canons of Pla- 
tonic taste, and some of his utterances are to be taken cum grano 
salis.“ He indulges also in rhetorical ornament which fails at 
times to beautify,” and numerous turns of expression emphasize 


38 Aside from the numerous instances of commonplaces already men- 
tioned, I refer to only two more. The juggling with ed wparrevw in 116 B ff. 
recalls Charm. 172 Af. and Euthyd. 279 A. In 135 B: zpiv dé ye aperav 
Eve, TO dpyeobar duewvov bd Tov BeAtiovog t Td Apyecv avdpi, ov pdvov radi, there 
is a general Socratic commonplace, which occurs also in Arist. Pol, I 5, 7, 
Xen. Mem. I 2, 49 ff., and in the Repudilic 590 D ff. 

% At 109 DE a reference to II. 15, 39; at 131 E there is an allusion to 
Od. 2, 365, at 132 A one to Il. 2, 547, in 112 Ba general reference to the 
Iliad and Odyssey. The word xpyyvo = ayaboi, 111 E (in Homer, Ul, 1, 106), 
occurring nowhere in prose, except here, before the affected Alexandrians 
and Neo-Pythagoreans, is a most palpable sign of spuriousness (cf, Cobet), 
Aesop is quoted in 123 A, cf. also Phaedo 60 C ff. Plato’s fondness for 
the comic poets was well appreciated (vid. Olympiodorus vit. Plat., Her- 
mann, Vol. VI, p. 192). At 120 A: Meidiav tov optrvyoxéroy, we have an 
Aristophanic touch; cf, Aves, 1297. According to the scholiast there is 
in 121 CD a‘quotation from Plato Comicus. 

40 He becomes positively rude in 118 B and 119 B; again, compare 118 E: 
To TlepikAéoug vige HAWiw éyevéoOyv with Prot, 320 A: GAA’ avtol mepudvTec 
véwovtar Gorep adetor, and ibid.: ri 6’ dv ab KAewiav Aéyowc, watvduevov avOpa- 
mov with Prot. 320 A: Kai <d¢ with Cobet> piv ££ uivac yeyovévat, arédwxe 
TovTw obk Eywv 6, TL yphoaito aiTé. See also 120 B. The whole passage 
120 AB is purely sarcastic and displays none of Socrates’ delicate irony. 

41103 A: éy® 08 TooobTwv étdv ovdé mpoceiTov ; ibid.: dayudviov EvavTiopa, Ov 
od tiv dbvamv Kal botepov Teboe, promises what A/c. J does not strictly fulfill ; 
a fact which may well have helped to call forth the Zheages. 121 D and 
Legg. 694 D are in positive contradiction. What is said in 123 B of the 
lands at the service of the Persian Queen for purposes of ornament is not 
borne out by Xen, Anab. Liv,8,9. But Cobet is hardly justified in refusing 
to accept Xenophon as the authority for the statement because of the phrase 
mapa Baorrzéa, which, in this indefinite citation, might easily displace 
émt Bacrréa. 

#2 Note the ambiguity of reference in ov, 119 D, and of ovo7ep Aéyo in the 
similar passage,120 AB. In 124 D is this awkward turn: ériyeseiac Sedueba, 
uadAov pév Tarte GvOpwrot, atap vd ye Kat pddra ogddpa. The final burst of 
eloquence, in 135 E, may not have seemed as amusing to the author as it 
does to us. 


69 


the unplatonic effect of the whole.* From the character of our 
dialogue we should naturally expect to find the imitations of 
particular passages from the works of Plato quite numerous, as 
attesting its author’s minute acquaintance with his original.* All 
this, and more, may be adduced to refute the claims of the Alc. / 
to be considered a genuine Platonic dialogue; but some critics 
have sought to eliminate difficulties by making emendations and 
excisions. Such procedure would seem at first blush to be 
favored by the abundant evidence of tamperings with the text ;® 


® Note Adyov, ¢ trepredpdvyxac, 104 A; the abrupt Aexréorv Gv ein, 104 E; 
avTov . . . év ty Eipéry, 108 B, if év tr. E. be not, as I suspect, a gloss; té 
diagépet TO GE } Ade, 109 B, possibly suggested by such turns as Kep, 429 B: 
} Toiav airiy eivac } Tolav, etc., cp. Arist. Eth. Nic. 1103> 24: ov pxpdv obp 
dtagéper Td obTwe 7} obTw¢; dpdoov Kai éuol, 109 D, and @pale Kauoi, 110 D; 
iva pn wary oi diddoyo. <Adyor? Cobet> yliyverta, 110 A, for iva pw, pu, drareyo- 
pela ; Ko? Bovdj, 119 B, unless this be a proverbial expression, as it would 
appear to be from 124 B and Crito 49 D3; avdpa oidbpevov peyahdgpova 
elvat, 119 C. 

“104 D: Gavudta, 6 ti ror’ éoti Td cov Tpaypa, vid. Apol.20C; 104 E: mpoc 
avdpa .. . xpoodépecba, vid, Lysis 205 B; 107 C ff.: brav wept tay éavtov Tpay- 
Hatov k.T.A., vid. Charm. 161 B ff.; 109 B: dradéper bAov Te Kai ray, vid. e. g. 
Legg. 944 C: diadéper dé bA0v mov Kai T6 wav; 114 D: bBprorhe el, vid. Symp. 
175 E,215 B, Meno 76 A; 114 E: mh, GAAG od aitog Aéye, vid. Meno75 B: uh, 
@AAG ob, © Sdxparec, eimé; 115 A: pavtixdc yap el, vid. Meno 92 C: partic ei 
towe; 118 A: éroveidiotoc auatia, vid. Apol, 29 B (and for kaxovpyorarty, ibid., see 
- Lach, 192 D); 119 E: épyov arodeifecba, vid. note 3 to Aipparch.; 124 B: 
ov moe doxeig éEpav ae ovdele GAAOG GAAov, vid. Lysis 211 D; 125 Ef.: evBovdia 
and the discussion following is prob. due to Rep. 428 A ff. (note e. g. 
127 D: ov yap dbvayac pabeiv obf? Arig ob7’ Ev oiotiow, cf. Rep. 428 D: ric, éoyv 
éy@, kal év riow;), 131 C: épév Tov cbuatée cov épdv, éresdy Ahyet avOovv, aTiov 
olxerat (cf, also 131 DE) is from Symp, 183 E; 132 A: dyuepacrie is due to 
Gorg. 481 D and 513 C. This note contains only the principal instances 
not already quoted in previous ones. 

45 Constantin Ritter (Unters. iiber Plato, p. 89 f.) says: ‘‘Es kann kein 
Zweifel sein dass wir den 4/f. Z in die Zeit... zwischen Sym. u. Thedtet 
setzen miissen, wenn er als platonisch soll gelten kénnen.’’ From what we 
have already said, it is clear that Plato could have written the d/c. J only 
after his system had been fully developed; yet, on the other hand, it is not 
likely that after he had written the Z7maeus, say, he would return to such 
awork. Ritter’s evidence can only mean that our author imitated most 
successfully in externals the dialogues of a certain period and character ; 
but as for his statement, it only shows the inadequacy of his method. 

At 105 Ea few MSS, present an addition plainly spurious; in 128 A, 
after vai, Stobaeus presents two lines not in our MSS., and likewise in 133 
C a much longer interpolation. See Stob. III, xxi, 23, 24 Hense. 


7O 


yet, while we might gladly dispense with much that is intro- 
duced,” the MSS., which serve to detect the later additions, also 
forbid such violent measures. 

We have still to enquire concerning the origin and purpose of 
our dialogue. It seems clear that it was written, not very long 
after Plato’s death, by some Platonist who wished thereby to 
exhibit Socrates in his most characteristic attitude of delivering a 
protreptic discourse. In sketching the character of Alcibiades 
he evidently had in mind, besides the idea of the type of the 
Athenian public which Alcibiades presents, the accounts of 
Xenophon and Plato.“ In an age when hortatory addresses were 
common” the Adc. / naturally met with instant success; chiefly 
because it epitomized the ethico-political philosophy of Plato, and 
secondly, because it so consciously laid stress on those character- 


“At 108 CD (ovrw divacac eimeiv . . . 4 Téyvn Eyer) Hermann and Stall- 
baum employ brackets to eliminate a passage which is only too obviously 
unplatonic ; but Schanz has very properly omitted the brackets, since they 
can be justified only on the supposition, which is too improbable, that 
Plato wrote the dialogue. With equal justice one might propose the 
following excisions: (1) 107 A: ov ydp mov... 107 C: dpblac avacorhoe.; (2) 
the absurd but necessary words, 115 D: é icov tO reOvaver, O¢ douxev, Pyyi 5 
(3) 117 B: ap’ obv obtw nai éyer . . . 118 A: ob dgra; (4) 128 C: yuouvaorine 
pév apa... 128 D: gaiverac; (5) 131 A: ovdelc dpa... C: op66c, which 
adds nothing but the notion of depareia, borrowed quite probably from Rep. 
585 C ff. Yet, though the excessive verbosity is thereby relieved, such 
procedure is clearly impossible. 

*“Compare Xen. Mem. I 2, 16, with 4/c. J 105 A and Rep, 494 C. 
Sokrates’ arguments with Glaucon (Mem. III 6) and Euthydemus (Mem. 
_ IV 2, 22 ff.) may have contributed somewhat, as well as Plato’s Apology 
and Sym. 215 Eff. The suggestion seems very natural that Alcibiades 
is the typical man of good parts (ep. 490 E ff.), by nature marked out for a 
philosopher, but ruined by corruption in the state ; and one who attentively 
reads Adc, J with that passage in mind will be convinced that its author so 
interpreted Plato’s allusions. Note, e.g. Reps. 491 E: ék veavixge gvoewe, cf. 
Alc, I 104 A: veavikwrdtov yévove. Socrates’ parting words to Alcibiades 
(Ale. 7135 E: Sovdoiuny av oe dvatredécar* dppwdG dé, ob Tt TH OF HboEt amLoTOY, 
aAAa THv THe TéAEwe dpOv Pour, ui) Euod TE Kai cov Kpathoy) seem to emphasize 
this portraiture. Hermann (Onomasticon Platon. s. v. ’Ad«,) recognizes 
portraiture of Alc. in 494 B; Jowett and Campbell (The Rep. of Plato, 
Vol. III, p. 282) likewise in part (esp. in 493 C: Kal ére evewdi¢ Kai wéyac),. 
but associate with him in Plato’s thought (wrongly, as I believe) Pausanias 
and Themistocles; Mr. Pater (in Plato and Esatoraren p. 116) seems cor- 
rectly to refer the whole to Alcibiades. 

#9 On this whole class of productions cp. R. Hirzel, Ueber den Protrep- 
tikos des Aristoteles, Hermes X 61 ff. 





71 


istics of the master which were, by virtue of their being most 
external and common, the most tangible aspects of Platonism. 
One evidence of its success, however, is also a strong witness of 
its supposititious character. For its novelty, as having but lately 
appeared, must be presumed to have contributed somewhat to 
the favor with which the authors of the later spurious dialogues 
received it.” On the other hand, the priority of A/c. 7 becomes 
thus firmly established, and we run no risk in dating it not later 
than the beginning of the III century B.C. However the case 
may stand in regard to the maturer works of Aristotle,” it is not 
improbable that his juvenile //potpext:xds* was known to our 
author; and either his Moyizd¢ or Ilept Grhocogias was all but 
certainly drawn upon.” Finally, if Suidas’ list of the works of 


It will have been noted that in treating of these works reference was 
constantly had to our dialogne. See also above,notes7 ff. The Zpinomis 
is perhaps the only one of considerable size on which it would be safe to 
say that 4/c, Jhad had no influence. 

5 Aristotle’s axpoatixé did not become generally known until rather late. 
But see the foregoing notes which make it seem highly probable that the 
extant Aristotelian works were known to our author. 

Tt is barely possible that in 132 A: evrpdownxoc yap 6 weyadgtopoc duoc 
"Epeybéwe* aA’? axodivta ypy avtov Oedoacba:, the ‘* Fru Welt”’ portrait of 
Athens may be drawn after Arist. Protrept. frag. 59 (Rose, Teubn. Ed. 
from which I regularly quote—Iambl. Protrept. c. 8), particularly since, 
in the Latin parallel, Boethius (de Cons. Phil. 3,8) mentions Alcibiades as 
the illustration, quite certainly after Aristotle (cf. Bywater, Journ. Philol. 
II, p. 60). However this may be, the probability of our author’s using the 
Arist. Prot. is very great. See also above, note 33, and the end of my 
section on Alc. II]. The passage there quoted may well have been referred 
to Alcibiades by Aristotle, who had, as noted above, used Alcibiades as 
his example in the Protrept. 

33 4)]e, 122 A: ov 6 wév payeiav Te diddoKes THY Zwpodotpov Tov ’Qpoudfov: 
éoti 0& TovTo Gedv Oepareia, The last clause is consciously novel, 
and has long been objected to (first, I believe, by Ast). In II. ® Aristotle 
had spoken of Zoroastrianism (see note 14 to Zfinomis), and Diog. L. 
Proem. 8, says: tiv dé yoyTiKyy payeiav ovd’ éyvwoav <sc. of udyor>, dnolv 6 
"AptororéAne év TH uayik@. It is therefore probable that the preceding words 
(D. L. Proem. 6) came from the same source, since thus the negative 
statement is supplemented by a positive definition of wayeia: Tove dé udyoucg 
mepi te Oepareiac Gedy duatpiBew Kai Orvoiag Kal edyag (frag. 36, Rose). 
The genuineness of the Mayixéc¢ is doubted by many, and by some it was 
attributed to Antisthenes, Bernays (Abhandlungen I, p. 40 ff.) shows that 
the work entitled Zoroastres and formerly attributed to Heraclitus was 
written by Heraclides Ponticus ; and remarks upon the great interest of the 
Peripatetics in Magian and Parsic matters (zdzd. p. 45, n.). For our purpose 


72 


Philip of Opus™ be trustworthy, it is possible that the culmination 
of our dialogue (132 D: zwduveder yap odd: zodhayod elvat napddsiypa 
avtod, adha xara thy Oty povov) may have been suggested to our 
author in reading his treatises on optics.* 


§ XVI.—EPINomIS. 


This dialogue would supplement the Laws’ by answering the 
question: What is true wisdom, or what knowledge makes man 
blessed? The Laws however mention no such agreement on 
the part of the collocutors to meet again and complete their task, 
as is here assumed, nor does Plato there betray any sense of the 
need of it. Our author was probably misled by the words (Legg. 
818 E): eyee yey yap odtws, & Khetvia, yakexdv 02 abtd mpotaédpevoy 
tTobtTw TH TéTW vopobeTEly * GAN’ sic Gdhov, ef Ooxet, ypdvov axptBéortepov 
dy vopobetnoatusda, At the first blush one might infer that Plato 
intended a subsequent more detailed treatment; but then the 
Athenian had said “‘¢/ doze?,” and on Cleinias’ immediate protest 
he proceeds at once with the argument (819 A-822 C and again 
966 ff.). Indeed, Plato distinctly declined to elaborate in advance 
the education of the voogiiazec, reserving it for those first elected 
to that office after the establishment of the commonwealth to 
regulate by law the conduct of the Nocturnal Council (Legg. 
968 C): obzét: véuous, & Méytdhe xart Khewla, mept tdy totobtwy dvvatéy 
Gott vouobstetv, zply dy xoounOy * téte 02 xupioug wy abtods det 
yiyvec0at vopobstety, rm 

Though this would of itself suffice to athetize the work, there 
is not wanting abundant evidence of another kind to prove its 
fraudulent character. Whatever difficulties the Laws present are 
here aggravated tenfold: Plato’s later tendency to mystic state- 
ment and prolixity becomes here and there aimless verbosity.’ 


it differs little who was the author of these works. The accounts which 
credit Plato with a knowledge of magic and Zoroastrianism are all late and 
suspicious. See Proleg., etc.,in Hermann, Vol. VI, p. 199,c. 1V, Pausanias 
IV, 32, 4, Plin. Hist. Nat. XXX, 2. 

54 See note 16 to Zpin., esp. OntiKOr, EvorTpiKar. 

55 See also above, note 31. 

1This purpose is sufficiently clear, and is emphasized by the meeting by 
agreement of the characters in the Zaws, though Megillus here is a mute 
figure. 

2 The opening sentence is intolerably tortuous; 974 A: kai xpdvo¢e Bpayxbe 

. . Biov tov avOpdrivov, is awkward and obscure; 974 A: TotTwy 07 Ti... 


73 


In vocabulary’ and in the manipulation of the dialogue our author 
closely follows Plato, though the dialogue sinks here to a mere 
form, and favorite expressions, foreign to his original, meet the 
eye on every page:* On the other hand, nothing could be more 
obvious than his dependence upon 7imaeus’ and Laws, while he 
may readily be shown to have made extensive use also of the 
Republic? 


T¢ Ady, is a very dubious and unplatonic jest. Note also these examples: 
evpely Te Kal eimeiv . . . obTe eimopev obte ebpouer, 973 B; did Adywv TavTwv kal 
mwavTy Aeyouévov, 974 C3 Tadvr’ ovx obtw¢ 7 TabTy <-+ TH?> Svudhooper Exe, 
ibid.; 4 viv eiphxapev époipév te, O¢ payer, bry dei Te Kal OTWE YpEedv pavOdverr. 

3 But the author shows peculiarities of his own. Thus, the double sense 
and the plural of ¢pdévyoe in 974 B; mpoogiAéc (may it be an error for 
mpoogepéc? see Hdt. V 111) ing76 A; wdpeg, 976 D, drag Aey. in the canon ; 
Ciov 7d Tv avOpdrwr, ibid., is absurd; Tobtwy CO év zyepoviarc, 981 C, and 
onpaivery = dydovoba, 989 A, want classic authority. In 987 B, éyee Adyov 
(like aitiay éyer) means ‘7s said,’ not ‘rationi consentaneum est,’ as Stallbaum 
renders it; but this usage again is not classic Greek. So orepeuviag pboewe, ! 
981 D, is an expression unknown to the classic authors, but it is very 
frequent in Stoic and Epicurean literature. In view of this it is perhaps 
worth considering whether tottwy 0” év wyeuoviaic, just quoted, does not 
reflect the Stoic «pao dv’ dAwv ; cp. also 981 D: 70 ydp mAkiorov rupdc Exet, 
Eyer uv yae Te Kal Gépoc, Eyer dé kai drdvtwv Tév GAdwv Bpaxéa pépy. 

*Note 973 B: drorov ppv axotceobai oe Adyov oluat, Kai Tiva Tpdrov OK GToToV 
av, and 976 E: ¢pdvew yph, xairep drorov dbvta, kai tw¢ ovK atorov ad, both 
possibly suggested by Rep. 532 D: doxei yarerd pév arodéyeoba civat, dAdov 0? 
av tpérov yakera ph arodéyeoba, particularly since (as will soon appear, cf. 
note 6) our author had closely studied that passage ; but droroc was a great 
favorite with him, as appears also from 990 A: oyeddv pév ody éotiv atorov 
axoboavtt, and 976 B: Aoi... Tle atomocg divauec. Another favorite is 
mpootvxye; cf. 973 B, 985 C, 990 D. In ggt D we read Oedv devon dei Kareiv 
and in 992 A, tiyyy dei xadeiv, A strange construction may be obviated by 
reading paxdpwv for paxdpio¢g dv in 992 B: elite tig év Hreipore, eit’? év vhoor 
uakdpioc Ov CH, as wakdpiov immediately precedes. 

5I note only Epin. 977 B: elite xéopor, cite bAvurov, eite ovpavov év ydovy 
Tw Aéyewv, cf. Tim, 28 B: 6 6 rae ovpavdc—h Kdopog % GAO 6, ti roTE bvomaté- 
uevoc paduor’ av déxorto, and Epin. 986 B: oiovg ovdé Oéwe eireiv judy ovdevi, cf. 
Tim. 29 A: ci d2 5 pnd? eimeiv Twi Duc. So too in kata rov quétepov pidor, 
Epin. 980 A, while clearly inept here, we have the language of Zimaeus, cf. 
e.g.29 D, Elsewhere we find the ordinary turns xara Tov eixéra ee 981 
B, and kara ddééav rHv érceckh, 984 B. 

6 Epin. 977 C: SGov dé, 6, Te py yeyvooKos Kai dbo Kal Tpia unde Tepittov pnde 
dptiov, may be derived from Rep. 522 C: 76 év Te kai dbo kai Ta Tpia diaytyvdo- 
kev, but more probably from Legg. 818 C: pare év pate dbo phe tpia us? brws 
dptia kai mepitta duvdpuevoc yryvookew ; for Epin. 990 C: apiOudv . . . odpata 
éxovtwr, cf. Rep. 525 E: cduata éyovtac apiuoic; pin. 989 B: Té te yap tie 


74 


All this might indeed be taken as corroborating Plato’s author- 
ship, were there not a reverse side to this picture. The chief 
among the considerations to be weighed are the following. First, 
this cheaply-bought likeness is fully matched by differences only 
by violence reconcilable with Plato’s views.’ But, second, a recon- 
ciliation is fortunately not needed; for—and this cannot be well 
conceived of in P/afo—our author apparently owes as much to 
Aristotle as to the works already enumerated. The search here 
instituted for the true cogiéa is essentially the same as that under- 


Ppadeiag te Kal tic évavtiag pboewe doubtless reflects Rep. 526 B: réde Hn 
érreoxépa, OC ot Te Hboet AoyioTiKol cig TdvTa TA pwabhuata . . . O&ei¢ HbovTat, Ot TE 
Bpadeic k.7.2., though Polzt. 305 D ff. probably occasioned the different trend 
of thought; Epin. 990 A: copdraroy avaykn Tov GAnbd¢ dorpovopoy sivas, pip Tov 
ka? ‘“Hoiodov aorpovoyotvta Kal mdvtac rode TovobTove, olov dvopadc Te Kal avaToAdc 
érreokeuuévov, looks to be a flat reproduction of Glaucon’s words, Rep, 527 D: 
TO yap Tepl Gpac evarcAytotépwc Exetv kal pyvor Kai EviavTdv ov pdvoy yewpyia ovdé 
vautidia mpoonker, aAAG Kat orparnyia ovy yTTOv, with Socrates’ reply: 7dve¢ el, drt 
éotxac dedidre Tove ToAAGdC, UH SoKHe 4xpyota pabhuata TpooTdrrey, 

7] shall not here insist on our author’s ranking mathematics highest 
among human pursuits while Plato considers this study to be only the best 
propaedeutic to dialectic; nor on his classing ai#jp among the elements 
(981 C), since we have Xenocrates’ word (vid. Zeller, II A, p. 800, note 6), 
whether true or not, for attributing this to Plato. The occurrence of this 
tenet in Xenocrates, who generally followed Plato closely, as well as in 
Aristotle and Speusippus <? cf. Theol. Arithm. p. 62, and Zeller, II A, p. 
1008, n. tS; lends some probability to the supposition that Plato also held it, 
But does Plato’s reputed (cf. Theophrastus ap. Diels, Dox. p. 494) repent- 
ance of his geocentric system warrant us in accepting as Platonic the 
earth’s motion in its orbit (cf. Hpi. 983 B)? Zeller, indeed (Vol. II A, p. 
1042, note 5), would strike out y#v re xai, thus obviating the difficulty; but 
is this probable? The daemonology of the five orders of life (2pm. 
984 B ff.) is surely not Platonic; but Stallbaum’s attempt (Vol. X, 3, p. 468) 
to claim it for Stoicism utterly fails, because Macrobius, Saturnal. I, 23, 
whom he misinterprets, doubtless derived his authority only from our 
passage in the Zpinomis, Nevertheless it is not wholly improbable that 
Aristotelian and Stoic conceptions found their way into this discussion. 
See note 3 above and note 12 below, and with Zin. 981 E compare Zeller 
II B, p. 359 ff., III A, p. 139, n. 5, and p. 136 £., and Sext. Empir. IX 85 ff. » 
Proclus’ objection (ap. Hermann Plat. Vol. VI, p. 218), based on the 
discrepancy in direction of the planets between Zim. 36 C and Zfin. 987 B, 
may indeed be met as Archer-Hind in Timaeus (ad loc. cit,) meets it, but 
only on the supposition that Plato wrote both passages. The words (Zin, 
980 D) éAdGere . . . irouvhpata, finally, must mean that, at the time of 
writing, the Zaws had already been published. On this, again, see 
Proclus (1. 1.). 


75 


taken in Aristotle’s Metaphysics, cc. 1 and 2, which scholars® now 
agree in considering as a more condensed and scientific restate- 
ment of the juvenile ep) Ocrocogias. Again, Aristotle’s historical 
method also appears in our dialogue,’ and numerous details tend 
strongly to confirm the presumption thereby created. Thus the 
words (Epin. 975 A): 7 8 ody ddgitwy te xat ddebpwy notnats dpa xar 
tpogh xakn psy xat dyaby, cogdy dé avdpa tehéwe odx eOedjoet mote 
axepydoac0a* todto yap abcd, 4 THS Totpaews extxdnots Tay ToLovpevwy 
<= rootvtwy> adtdy, dvoyépetav dnepyafotr’ &* rest clearly upon 
Aristotle’s rigid distinction between zoryrex7 (which becomes 
dnepyactixzx—a term foreign to Plato’s usage—in Fin. 975 B) 
and @swpytixy, and his restriction of true scogéa to the latter.” 
Again, Epin. 977 C: Sov... ob% dy mote diddvat Adyov Eyoe mept dy 
alcOj4oers xar pyipas pdvoy etn xextnuévov, contains a thought a priorz 


8 Vid. Blass in Rh. Mus. Vol. XXX, p. 481 ff. For the general similarity 
of Met. A. with Aristotle’s juvenile works see also Diels in Archiv I, p. 
490 ff., esp. 491, Nn. 23. 

9Note the rise of civilization sketched Zin. 974 B f. (cf. Steinhart, Vol. 
VIII, p. 147, note 6). This, as well as the similar one in Ilepi dcAocogiac 
(cf. Bywater’s article in Jour, Philol. VII, p. 64 ff.), draws upon Plato’s 
Laws, 667 ff. Compare Zpin. 975 C3; opyaver, Legg. 677 C: dpyava; Epin, 
ibid., yad«eia, Legg. 678 D: 1) rév petaddéwv téxvy; Epin. ibid.: wAaorixav 
kal wAextinov; Legg. 679 A: ai mAaotixal yap Kai boat TwAEKTiKal TOV TEXVOD ; 
Epin. ibid.: Onpevtich, Legg. 679 A; Onpebovtes; Epin, ibid.: wavtinh, Legg. 
677 D: ’Opdei; Hpin. ibid.: texvixh, Legg. 677 D: Aadddy, etc. But it is 
plain that the Zginomis, while using (with Aristotle) Platonic material, 
treats it in Aristotle’s manner. This was quite in the spirit of all of Plato’s 
successors, and was continued by Stoics and Epicureans alike. Cf. Zeller 
III A, p. 415 ff. 

9 Render, say, ‘The making—and subsisting on—barley and wheat flour 
is very good, but may never lay claim to rendering one perfectly wise; for 
the very fact that they who are engaged in this pursuit call it rotyjovg is an 
insuperable objection.’ The principal difficulty in this rendering is that 
rovovuévov would naturally at first glance be taken for passive; but the 
middle is not unknown, as in Plotin. Enneas IT, 1: mepi d& tév yeyvouévor 
dvTav pév asi, ob THY avTav d& Evépyetav ToLovméevor asi, K.t.A, Bywater 
(1. 1., p. 65) attributes the following words of Joannes Philoponos in sub- 
stance to Aristotle’s Il, ®.: émevdéouv in’ avayxne Ta pode thy ypeiav, } TO aA4G- 
Oerv pbaace citov y TO omeipety HTL TOLOvTOY GAAO, Kal Exddeoay 
THY ToLabTyY Exivotavy codpiarv, THY ee TA avayKaia TOU Biov Td AvolTEAgl 
éEevpioxovoarv, Kal cogov Tov Emwvevonkéra. TAaALY Emevdnoav TEYVaC... 
ov pénpe movnce THO ei¢ TOV Biov avdykneg lLotapévac, GAAG Kat 
expe Tov KadAov Kai aoteiov Tpoiovoac, Kk.T.A. With these last 
words compare Z/in. 975 C and Arist. Met. A. 1, 981) 17 ff. 

10 Met. A. 1,98221 ff. 


76 


more probable in Aristotle than in Plato." To the J/. %. are also 
probably due the five orders of life;” and if this be true, then 
possibly likewise the doctrine of the five elementary substances.” 
If now we add the touch of Zoroastrianism in 988 E: vevexnxdvar 
det xat vixdy ta dyada ta pH) Toradta, where the World Souls, good 
and evil, are under discussion, we shall have little need of 
referring to other details.” 


11 See Met. A. 1, 980b 24: pavbdver dé <Cdov> 6 rpd¢ TH uvhuy Ka rabryy Eyer 
thy alcbyow <sc. aKoqy>. Ta pév obv GAAa taic gavtaciae Ch Kal raic uvhfuace, 
éurreipiag d& petéxer puxpdv 7d dé TOv avOpérwv yévog Kal réyvn Kai Aoysopoic, 
Aristotle’s statement, one readily sees, comes in due course of argument, 
and may have been even more extended in II. %, while in the Zn. the 
words are introduced unnecessarily. 

UE pin. 981 C ff. Cf. Arist. Frag. 23 (Rose, ed. Teubn.) [Cic. de Nat. 
Deor. II 15]: Cum igitur aliorum animantium ortus in terra sit, aliorum in 
aqua, in aére aliorum, absurdum Aristoteli videtur in ea parte quae sit ad 
gignenda animantia aptissima, animal gigni nullum putare. sidera autem 
aetherium locum obtinent, etc. It is indeed possible (as Heinze, Xeno- 
krates, p. 93, Suggests) that this arose partly from a misunderstanding of 
Tim. 39 E; but it is far more probable that Philip (?) derived the thought 
from Aristotle. Xenocrates’ variant conception of the daiuovec as souls (on 
which see Heinze, p. 94 ff.) is a different matter, though he too may have 
derived some suggestion from his friend Aristotle. Compare notes 3 and 7 
above. 

13 See, however, note 7. The Epinomis (accepted as genuine) would 
then be the ultimate cause of the error. 

144See D. L. Proem. 8 (Arist. frag. 6): ’ApsotoréAne 0” év mpotw Tepi otho- 
codiag Kai mpeoBurépove elvar <Ctov¢e udyovc> tov Aiyurtioy+ Kai dbo Kar’ abvTode 
eivae apydc, ayabdv dainova kat Kkaxdv daivova. It is very probable that A. 
added the victory of Good over Evil. Such notices are just what we 
naturally expect from Aristotle. If Philip of Opus had this fact from A, 
there would be additional reason for regarding the Evil World Soul in the 
Laws as one of his interpolations, as Zeller is inclined to think, cf. Phil. der 
Griech, II A, p. 973, n. 3, and for the contrary view see Susemihl, Genet. 
Entw. II, p. 598 ff. See also Heinze, Xenokrates, p. 26 ff., and Zeller’s 
review of Heinze in Archiv f, Gesch, der Phil., 1894. I believe that, if 
anything is to be eliminated, the cure must be more radical than that 
proposed by Heinze and Zeller. 

1 Mention has already been made (note 12) of the five orders of life, and 
it was seen that Cicero’s quotation from Aristotle in De Nat. Deorum, II 
15, closely resembled Zz. 981 C ff. Cicerothen continues with arguments 
which are Platonic or Aristotelian in their general character, but also stand 
in intimate harmony with the Zpinomis. In II 16 he again cites Aristotle 
(frag.24), and this quotation again tallies well with what follows in Zin. 
982 B ff. It certainly seems highly probable that Cicero here is epitomizing 





- tits = 4 ~e. — ne oo ¢ 
8! ae a ee ee Oe ee ee 





77 


When and by whom, then, we may enquire, was the Epinomis 
produced? And here, beside the tradition ascribing it to Plato, 
we find one naming Philip of Opus, the reputed editor of the 
Laws, as its author. The character to be inferred from the 
Epinomis tallies admirably with the report of Suidas. But there, 
absurdly enough, he is made a contemporary of Philip of Mace- 
don and a personal pupil of Socrates. Since the error clearly 
lurks in the name of Socrates, Praetorius, led by supposed traces 
of ultra-Pythagoreanism, suggests Echecrates instead." But there 
is no need of supposing Philip indoctrinated with Pythagoreanism 
by Echecrates in Italy before he came to Athens, where its tenets 
were sufficiently current; and besides, according to Proclus,” it 
was to Plato that he owed his bent for mathematics. Of greater 
importance, however, even than this is the consideration that we 
thus fail to account for Philip’s strong literary and historical 
interest evidenced in the list of his works. Now, though it is not 


throughout one of Aristotle’s earlier works which may well have been 
known to the author of the Zfzzomis. Mayor’s commentary gathers the 
materials very well, Then, too, the argument, £f7#..988 A ff., to show that 
the gods cannot look with disfavor on the pursuit of the highest wisdom, may 
be due to the similar one in Arist. Met. 982 28 ff. or its prototype in II. &., 
and Praetorius (De Philippo Opuntio, p. 7 f.) may be right in attributing 
to Philip’s revision the parallel passages in Legg, 821 A and 967 A. Again, 
E pin. 973 D: Aéyw 0 oddév cogs”, is an expression foreign to Plato, 
who used ovdéy rociAov instead (cf. Meno 75 E, Gorg. 491 D,etc.). ELuthyd. 
293 D, Symp. 175 D, Theaet. 150 C, are not parallel cases; but in Arist. 
Met. A. 2, 9824 12: 616 padiov Kai ovdév cogdv, we find its perfect counterpart. 
Many other points I intentionally omit. 

16 See Diog. L. III, 37: évioi te daciv bri Diduemmog 6 Oroivtiog Tod¢ vdpoug 
avtov <sc. TAdtrwvog> petéypawev dvtag év kypG. tobtov dé Kai thy ’Erwwopida 
gaciv sivat, Suidas s, v. diAdoogoc: <®. 6’0.> giAdcodoc* b¢ Tove TlAdrwvoc 
vduoug dteidev ei¢ PiBAia 1B’* TO yap uy avto¢ rpoobeiva, Kal FY LoKpatuve 
kai avtov IlAdrwvog akovorthe, oxoddoag rtoic petedpo. Ov d& Kara 
Didirrov tov Makedéva ovveypadpato tade: mT. T. Arootdcewe HAiov Kal ceAhunc, 7. 
Gedv 2’, «. xpdbvov, 7. “iOwv, 7. éAevOepiac, 7. dpyic, T. avtarodécews, T. NoKpav 
TOV Orovrtiov, Tm. ydovge, T. Epwrocg, Tw. PlAwy Kal gLdaiag, x. 
Tov ypdgerv, wm. WAdtowvog, mw. éxdeipewe cedgvyc, mw. peyébove HAiov x, 
oednvn¢ K. g 7, aoTparay, m, TAavytov, apiOunriKd, mw. ToAvydyuv apluian, 
orriKoy B’, wm. EvowTPLKOY B’, KuKAaKd, pweodtyTac Kal dAAa. 

7Op. cit. p. 5 f. 

8 Proclus in Euclid. II, p. 19: @iAummog dé. . . WAdtwvoc dv pabyrie kai br’? 
éxeivou Mpotpareic ei¢ Ta pabhuata, Kai Tag CyThoetc éxoteito Kata Tac MAdTwvoc 
égnyhoec, kai Tavta rpobBarev éavt@, boa Geto TH lAdtwvoe giAocogia ovvrerciv. 


78 


to be doubted that Suidas or his predecessor really read Socrates,” 
we may well have here one of the many confusions of 22K PATOYZ 
and J0KPATOY, If Philip then entered the Academy late in 
life after studying under Isocrates,” imitation of Plato’s obscurer 
style and assiduous devotion to mathematics would readily 
account for the literary defects of the Apimomzs. Seeing, there- 
fore, that his acquaintance with Aristotle’s works displayed in 
our dialogue seems confined to the juvenile I/epi Pchocogias or the 
portions of the Metaphysics reproduced from it, we infer that he 
wrote his production shortly after the death of Plato and before 
the great achievements in astronomy of the Alexandrian age, of 
which he betrayed no knowledge. This conclusion, while not 
strictly verifiable, seems on the whole most probable.” 


19It seems quite improbable that Suidas would have said kai abvrow 
IlAadrwvoc unless he had read Socrates. 

20 Note the pompous ézov 67 Kai Sbvide, dv oot doKd Kay@ pet’ avTov Kado Tov 
Towbrov wépt Aéyerv, Epin. 973 C, and the truly Isocratean passage, pin, 
987 D: réde ye piv duevonbjvar xp) avr’ avdpa “EAAnva, «7.2, The close 
also is declamatory. Is there perhaps intended some criticism of Isocrates’ 
insistence on the need of ¢tove in oratory in Zpin. 976 BC? 

1Bergk, Fiinf Abhandlungen, etc. (1883), p. 53, n. I, tries to show that 
Philip edited the Laws (and presumably added the Zin.) immediately 
after Plato’s death. His reference to Isocrates, Philip, c. 13, may prove 
this regarding the Zaws, but will not necessarily hold asto Zin. Yet it 
seems likely that the latter appeared soon afterwards. Cf, in general 
Zeller, II A, p. 443, n. 1. Objections to this conclusion will probably be 


based on the recognition of Stoic influences in the Zpimomis. But the 


relation of many of the Stoic doctrines to anterior systems is too obscure 
to warrant a dogmatic decision on this point. 








CORRIGENDA ET ADDENDA. 


On ¢gevatd¢ in n. 4, p. 16, see also Zeller, III A, p. 223, n. 4. 

P. 18, n. 9 end, add: see also Cic. N. D., II, vii 19 and Sext, Empir. VII 
92 ff. 

P. 20, n. 1, read 7/ for 77, 

P. 31, n. 19, read éA0H for gy, 

P, 41, n. 14, end, for ome passage, read our passage. 

P. 44, n. 3, end, reference is to note 8 of Alc. J. 

P, 45, n. 7, add: See vaix: in Aristophanes, Thesmoph. 1183, 1218. 


Since my brief section on the Axiochus has been in print several discus- 
sions of that dialogue have come to my notice. Feddersen’s Programm 
(Cuxhaven, 1895) and Immisch’s Axiochus (Teubner, 1895) I know only at 
second hand. The latter work was reviewed by Wilamowitz in Gédtting. 
gelehrte Anzeiger, 1895, and by Wendland in the Berliner philol. Wochen- 
schr. for April 25, 1896. Wilamowitz now abandons his thesis that the 
Axiochus originated in the third century B. C., and believes, as I do, that 

» it is the latest of the vofevéueva (p. 984). But he still shares the reluctance 
of Immisch to dating it in the first century B. C. I am of course willing 
to admit that no definite date can be established, but Wilamowitz’s own 
argument, which is excellent, requires it to be set as late as possible; and 
I still hold that the beginning of the first century B. C. is early enough. 

OF THE 


| UNIVERSITY } 


OF f 
1 5) \ PS 
he woh F FO R Nido 





_ 








Sines 
“ert 


Pf ain 
x eo 
ise 





e. rn 
ohh 
Ge 


mal 
aie 


edd 











RETURN TO the circulation desk of any 
University of California Library 
or to the 
NORTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
Bldg. 400, Richmond Field Station 
University of California 
Richmond, CA 94804-4698 





ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS 
2-month loans may be renewed by calling 
(510) 642-6753 
1-year loans may be recharged by bringing 
books to NRLF 
Renewals and recharges may be made 4 
days prior to due date. 





DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 
































12,000 (11/95) 


LD21A-60m-8,'70 fs Cae ’ 
(N8837810)476——A-32 | Universiey 9 Pah Oraia 








f 
x 
{ 
\ 
x 
- 
) 
jee 
4 
} ( 
: 
t 
\ 
ie 
( \ F 
¢ 
\ 
\ 
ie { ; 
r f 
‘ } 
j 
- 
: . 
\ 
{ 
i t 
‘ i ( 
, - 





